UK Trident vote today

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You can't ignore the whole "status symbol" thing, because it gets trotted out every time- about how nukes allow Britain "a seat at the top table".

Well if there ever was a restaurant where, in order to get a decent table, you have to go "LOOK, EVERYONE! I'VE GOT A GUN! THAT's RIGHT! A GUN! AND UNLESS I GET A GOOD TABLE I MIGHT START KILLING PEOPLE WITH IT!", I wouldn't eat there. I'd go eat with Germany and Japan.

Incidentally, Putin's already invaded Eastern Europe.

[C0ckney]

Oh good advice hippy, let's tell Putin we want to melt down all our weapons and have an acoustic rock festival where we renew our vows of international brotherhood instead.

my point, as well you know, is that west's security problems are largely of its own making, and therefore the way to minimise such problems is to not create them in the first place, i.e. to stop starting and fomenting wars.

How is that a 'national phallic symbol'? Either you think both us AND the US (and French) should unilaterally disarm and hope Putin doesn't decide to invade Eastern Europe, or else you're a bum who still wants the US protection but just doesn't want to pay for it. Which one is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why's Putin going to invade anyway? Exporting the Glorious Revolution went badly out of fashion about a generation ago, and he's all about nationalism. Unless ethnic Russians are involved he doesn't look greatly interested. This is a real Reds Hysteria throwback.

[dannubis]

Because he doesnt need a rational reason to do so? And to be honest, there werent a lot of germans in france when hitler decided to kick in the front door...

[DinoDoc]

Why's Putin going to invade anyway? Exporting the Glorious Revolution went badly out of fashion about a generation ago, and he's all about nationalism. Unless ethnic Russians are involved he doesn't look greatly interested. This is a real Reds Hysteria throwback.

NATO's eastern flank seems scared ****less.

[pchang]

This debate also seems to fall along the lines of what you believe about human nature. The rainbows and unicorns crowd see no reason for nuclear arms. The people are generally **** crowd see a need for deterrence.

I would argue that nuclear weapons have been in constant use since they were developed. Putin is so petty he ordered a complete undermining of doping standards just to win a few extra gold medals. Just imagine what he would do if he did not fear any consequences for any of his actions.

[N35t0r]

You don't think the west has the capacity to inflict a severely crippling blow on Russia through conventional means, should he decide to redraw borders?

[Edit:] and that's without considering putting boots on the ground

[C0ckney]

Putin is so petty he ordered a complete undermining of doping standards just to win a few extra gold medals. Just imagine what he would do if he did not fear any consequences for any of his actions.

Why's Putin going to invade anyway? Exporting the Glorious Revolution went badly out of fashion about a generation ago, and he's all about nationalism. Unless ethnic Russians are involved he doesn't look greatly interested. This is a real Reds Hysteria throwback.

we don't agree on much, but you're absolutely spot on here.

[Aeson]

A state armed with nuclear weapons has a huge advantage over a state without nuclear weapons. Given human history and the countless (~constant) times when the strong have subjugated the weak ... having nukes as a deterrent makes sense.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

They don't stop wars though. See the Sino-Soviet War, and all those other times India/Pakistan/China decided to get a trifle shooty about who owns what bit of land.

[Dinner]

Why's Putin going to invade anyway? Exporting the Glorious Revolution went badly out of fashion about a generation ago, and he's all about nationalism. Unless ethnic Russians are involved he doesn't look greatly interested. This is a real Reds Hysteria throwback.

No, he is going to invade and force all the former Soviet Republics to be his vassals or invade and say he is "defending" Russian minoroties in the former USSR. That is what he has repeatedly done in the past and that is what he is currently doing in the Ukraine because that is how fascist dictators roll. He would especially love to do this against the baltic states which are NATO members but he is forced to be passive aggressive because of said NATO membership. So it would be nice to have at least one or two NATO members besides the US actually pull their weight and help provide a creditable deterrent.

[Aeson]

They don't stop wars though. See the Sino-Soviet War, and all those other times India/Pakistan/China decided to get a trifle shooty about who owns what bit of land.

Those aren't the type of wars nuclear deterents stop. They stop* "marching into [nuclear power]'s capital" type wars.

*so far ... an aggressor who was willing to sacrifice most of their population, and perhaps most of the world population, could still attempt such a thing.

[kentonio]

my point, as well you know, is that west's security problems are largely of its own making, and therefore the way to minimise such problems is to not create them in the first place, i.e. to stop starting and fomenting wars.

I absolutely agree with all of that. Giving up nukes now though would still be extremely stupid. Unless the west getting a taste of its own medicine is a favourable outcome for you, in which case its a great idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Please feel free to fill me in on any additional options I may have missed.

[kentonio]

They don't stop wars though. See the Sino-Soviet War, and all those other times India/Pakistan/China decided to get a trifle shooty about who owns what bit of land.

Any of those conflicts escalate into a full blown existential war between nations? No, exactly..

[C0ckney]

I absolutely agree with all of that. Giving up nukes now though would still be extremely stupid. Unless the west getting a taste of its own medicine is a favourable outcome for you, in which case its a great idea.

i'm glad you agree, although your support for wars in the past seems to belie that statement.

i don't understand the second and third sentences (the connection, not the content).

Please feel free to fill me in on any additional options I may have missed.

posts #18 and #22.