BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
We won`t because we have a nuclear deterrent... Do keep up
I do admire your optimism.
War with Russia
- Thread starter Milzy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I do admire your optimism.
FishFright
Well-Known Member
What's the point ? It'll just be more innocents dead and no change to the outcome.
spen666
Active Member
Interesting 2 statements there
1.Saying Russia are aggressive to the UK
2. Saying the UK should try harder to get trade deals
Think you have answered the 2nd point with your first
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
We wash your dirty money so stop poisoning your ex agents over here ? It's not like the Tories don't have form for this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-husband-given-8m-by-kremlin-linked-oligarch
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-husband-given-8m-by-kremlin-linked-oligarch
newfhouse
pleb
Why does, say, Argentina or Nigeria not fear a nuclear strike?We won`t because we have a nuclear deterrent... Do keep up
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
1. How do you know they don't?
2. IMHO, the risk of a nuclear attack is greatest (but not exclusively) from a terror organisation, or, failed Nation State, not a functioning Nation State.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
As in the USA ?
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
I did say "not exclusively". As I understand it, it would take more than one nutcase (Trump) to actually launch an attack, but, of course, no system is 100% fool proof.
newfhouse
pleb
I don’t, but why would they?
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
No idea, but, usually, if I make an assertion such as that, someone asks "how do you know...", thought I would give it a try myself
As I said, IMHO, the risk of a Nuclear attack as a "first strike" option by a functioning Nation State, is vanishingly small (thank goodness), but, the risk from the extreme and/or the unhinged is more worrying.
I could be wrong, I am a cycling retiree, not a Pentagon (or Russian) strategist.
OP
OP
Milzy
Well-Known Member
Bible says an eye for an eye tooth for tooth etc. If someone in the street slaps you in the face you may instinctively slap them back.
FishFright
Well-Known Member
Who then slaps you back so you take an eye for an eye and slap him , repeat and repeat and .......
Just because it's in a really old collection of short stories it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
newfhouse
pleb
Rusty Nails
Country Member
This sort of encompasses the whole argument about pacifism vs the possible justification for war.
In the vanishingly unlikely event of Russia, or some rogue nation, virtually obliterating an area such as Birmingham with a nuclear bomb, should we sit back and do nothing, suck up the death of hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people, in the hope that that would be the end of it. Or do we show that we can defend ourselves with similar weapons to deter future attack, or hope that our allies would do it for us, or that diplomacy would make the attacker repent.
I admit that war is always a result of failure, but also declare that, while I do not believe I am a warmonger, I also believe that I am not a pacifist. Those are the extremes.
Unfortunately, in this world, we increasingly see that might is right becomes a real factor in relations between nations and the actions of some.
Fab Foodie
Guru
Russia doesn't want a war with anyone of any significance, it simply can't afford it despite Putin's rhetoric (which is simple propaganda for internal consumption).
