News2 mins ago
The Peacenik's At It Again
This man must be borderline certifiable, does he not understand the word deterrent.
Who knows what threats we might face in the next decade or two.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Baldric 01:22
I read that intellingence sources, of the past, grossly overestimated the numbers of MiGs, tanks and long range bombers (pre-ICBM age) and the USA was bricking it to such a degree that Strategic Air Command was massively scaled up (nuke-equipped Buffs airborne 24/7) and their eventual ICBM arsenal was massive. Russia went into panic mode, trying to keep up. Ironically, it was later thought that some of conventional weapons, mentioned above, were dummy objects, intended to be seen by spy planes. Visible Forces was the old-fashioned method of deterrence.
One way or another, merely causing the USA to burn masses of fuel and spend billions on manpower, bomber fleets and ICBMs for the relatively low outlay of dummy weapons meant that massive economic damage had been inflicted with no blood spilt. Americans got rich, regardless and ended up with their space program and some of the most effective weapons systems known to man. Russia opted for numbers over equipment quality as they had population advantage: To beat a 4-missile fighter, you only needed 5 fighters.
I read that intellingence sources, of the past, grossly overestimated the numbers of MiGs, tanks and long range bombers (pre-ICBM age) and the USA was bricking it to such a degree that Strategic Air Command was massively scaled up (nuke-equipped Buffs airborne 24/7) and their eventual ICBM arsenal was massive. Russia went into panic mode, trying to keep up. Ironically, it was later thought that some of conventional weapons, mentioned above, were dummy objects, intended to be seen by spy planes. Visible Forces was the old-fashioned method of deterrence.
One way or another, merely causing the USA to burn masses of fuel and spend billions on manpower, bomber fleets and ICBMs for the relatively low outlay of dummy weapons meant that massive economic damage had been inflicted with no blood spilt. Americans got rich, regardless and ended up with their space program and some of the most effective weapons systems known to man. Russia opted for numbers over equipment quality as they had population advantage: To beat a 4-missile fighter, you only needed 5 fighters.
@Baldric
//We've got a few on here that would consider that an honour.
01:59 Sun 28th Feb 2016//
I've no idea if Laura Kuenssberg would be allowed to (ask Corbyn) but the question has been asked, here, many times: "should the UK become a backwater, which no longer interferes with geopolitics?", to which he would appear to want to say "yes".
I'm not convinced he grasps the point that being a non-interfering backwater does not make a country immune from attack. Far from it. If we have resources which a foreign power wants and they suspect we cannot defend ourselves, they will attack.
I'm not sure if Ukraine is a misleading example, or not but the west won't touch it with a bargepole, *for fear of escalation*. How many iterations of that reasoning will we have to sit through in coming years and what if it was us on the receiving end? More thumb-twiddling?
p.s. You may need to clarify whether your comment means these ABers would relish being a Russian serf in a Tsarist (Putin) setup. Russia would not be bringing some (imagined) communist utopia with them. I sincerely hope Corbyn appreciates that point, too.
//We've got a few on here that would consider that an honour.
01:59 Sun 28th Feb 2016//
I've no idea if Laura Kuenssberg would be allowed to (ask Corbyn) but the question has been asked, here, many times: "should the UK become a backwater, which no longer interferes with geopolitics?", to which he would appear to want to say "yes".
I'm not convinced he grasps the point that being a non-interfering backwater does not make a country immune from attack. Far from it. If we have resources which a foreign power wants and they suspect we cannot defend ourselves, they will attack.
I'm not sure if Ukraine is a misleading example, or not but the west won't touch it with a bargepole, *for fear of escalation*. How many iterations of that reasoning will we have to sit through in coming years and what if it was us on the receiving end? More thumb-twiddling?
p.s. You may need to clarify whether your comment means these ABers would relish being a Russian serf in a Tsarist (Putin) setup. Russia would not be bringing some (imagined) communist utopia with them. I sincerely hope Corbyn appreciates that point, too.
Stupid man, has he missed news vids of flattening of Alepo? Is he aware we are targets for ISIS? In JCs care he wont be able to shop in Holloway as it will be rubble.
https:/
https:/
@tambo
I'm pretty sure I heard some pundit, expressing his fears for cultural sites, like Palmyra, *before* the hoodlums went and trashed it. I cannot help wondering if they might have been sufficiently ignorant to have ignored these old ruins, had not they, via their social contacts, got wind that these were somehow 'precious' to westerners.
When it comes to "what we don't want to see terrorists do", I sometimes wish people (especially these pundits) would just keep their gobs shut.
I'm pretty sure I heard some pundit, expressing his fears for cultural sites, like Palmyra, *before* the hoodlums went and trashed it. I cannot help wondering if they might have been sufficiently ignorant to have ignored these old ruins, had not they, via their social contacts, got wind that these were somehow 'precious' to westerners.
When it comes to "what we don't want to see terrorists do", I sometimes wish people (especially these pundits) would just keep their gobs shut.
@Gromit
I already explained that they are useless at mitigating small-scale wars. Did you ignore my post.
Nukes are for stopping major powers attacking us, not for politicking when B hits C, in some remote part of the world.
Other posters only meant (I think) something like that. No-one was claiming that nukes are a cure-all for all wars!
I already explained that they are useless at mitigating small-scale wars. Did you ignore my post.
Nukes are for stopping major powers attacking us, not for politicking when B hits C, in some remote part of the world.
Other posters only meant (I think) something like that. No-one was claiming that nukes are a cure-all for all wars!
// The mention of Palmyra reminds me, was the damage the Americans did to Babylon ever fully documented?//
erm Sandy I dont recollect that the American walked up to bits of babylong and blew it to smithereens intentionally by layhing charges around the weak bits
I would believe you if you said they did
Now did the British document the Elgin marbles before they took them out of Greece and deprived the greeks of their heritage ?
yes you can see them at the British Museum .....
erm Sandy I dont recollect that the American walked up to bits of babylong and blew it to smithereens intentionally by layhing charges around the weak bits
I would believe you if you said they did
Now did the British document the Elgin marbles before they took them out of Greece and deprived the greeks of their heritage ?
yes you can see them at the British Museum .....
Apparently Corbyn is going against his own party line, which supports a nuclear deterrent.
He has also upset them further by being absent yesterday from his own party's day for campaigning against Brexit
What a shambles that party has now become.
http://
http://
He has also upset them further by being absent yesterday from his own party's day for campaigning against Brexit
What a shambles that party has now become.
http://
http://
AOG
I hope you were being ironic when you wrote
// He has also upset them further by being absent yesterday from his own party's day for campaigning against Brexit . What a shambles that party has now become. //
Todays headline: Tory infighting intensifies as David Cameron is warned of plot to oust him
http://
Can I take it ou are following your leaders' 'Stay' in the EU stance, otherwise that would be a shambles, wouldn't it?
I hope you were being ironic when you wrote
// He has also upset them further by being absent yesterday from his own party's day for campaigning against Brexit . What a shambles that party has now become. //
Todays headline: Tory infighting intensifies as David Cameron is warned of plot to oust him
http://
Can I take it ou are following your leaders' 'Stay' in the EU stance, otherwise that would be a shambles, wouldn't it?
Gromit
No Gromit just the Tories freedom of a choice of independent free expression.
I don't know if you watched BBC's Question Time, when Diana Abbott was challenged regarding her view, that she was once a strong supporter for a referendum on Europe, yet she voted with the rest of her party on not having one, her excuse "she is a loyal party member"
That's the difference Gromit, the Tories have a mind of their own, yet Labour...........
No Gromit just the Tories freedom of a choice of independent free expression.
I don't know if you watched BBC's Question Time, when Diana Abbott was challenged regarding her view, that she was once a strong supporter for a referendum on Europe, yet she voted with the rest of her party on not having one, her excuse "she is a loyal party member"
That's the difference Gromit, the Tories have a mind of their own, yet Labour...........
The point about a nuclear deterrent, and I apologise if it's already been mentioned, is to stop another side launching a nuclear attack on you. That is it.
It's nothing to do with anything else.
What is NATO using to deter Russian aggression in E Europe? Deploying conventional weapons of course because that is still how even Russia's hybrid wars are fought.
It's nothing to do with anything else.
What is NATO using to deter Russian aggression in E Europe? Deploying conventional weapons of course because that is still how even Russia's hybrid wars are fought.
What I have never understood about the deterrent argument for nukes the vast majority of countries on the planet seem to manage very well without them.
All of mainland Europe, all of South America, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc, etc, haven't been invaded by Russia, and this has come about without the assistance of nukes.
So if they haven't got nukes, what is deterring Russia from invading them ?
Could it be perhaps that Russia doesn't want to ?
All of mainland Europe, all of South America, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc, etc, haven't been invaded by Russia, and this has come about without the assistance of nukes.
So if they haven't got nukes, what is deterring Russia from invading them ?
Could it be perhaps that Russia doesn't want to ?
Mikey
I seem to recall reading a few years back that Canada voted against Nuclear weapons on their soil as it was expected that their neighbour would provide the deterrent.I expect the South Americas and Japan are of the same mind.We look after the Commonwealths interests I suppose. That is why we have or are supposed to have a nuclear powered and armed submarine patrolling the world's oceans 24/7.
if
I seem to recall reading a few years back that Canada voted against Nuclear weapons on their soil as it was expected that their neighbour would provide the deterrent.I expect the South Americas and Japan are of the same mind.We look after the Commonwealths interests I suppose. That is why we have or are supposed to have a nuclear powered and armed submarine patrolling the world's oceans 24/7.
if
Incredibly naive question Mikey. Do a bit of research.
https:/
Oh, and France has them so your 'mainland Europe state to was wrong too.
https:/
Oh, and France has them so your 'mainland Europe state to was wrong too.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.