On Sunday, 17 July 2016 12:25:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 15:57:47 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But is trident replacement the best value for money

Corse it isnt. It is in fact ****ing billions against
the wall to no useful purpose what so ever.

Crikey. You've actually got something right. Must go and have a lie
down.

That's ok then, lets drop it. When the Russians kick-off we'll issue
everyone with pitchforks.

If the Russians decided to 'kick off' with nuclear weapons against the UK,
there wouldn't be many left to issue everyone with anything.

Do you not comprehend the meaning of deterrence

Go on then harry. You explain just how it works.

Does the 'threat' of dying deter suicide bombers?
The nutcase who drove that truck?

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

It deters the Russians and the likes of North Korea.
The nuclear deterrent stopped WW2 in less than a week and saved tens of thousands of lives.
It has maintained the peace for over seventy years now in Europe, the longest period without a war in history.

The new form of war is assymetric war. Eg Al Qaeda.

But the old form of war has not gone away.
If the Ukrainians had kept their nuclear missiles, would the Russian have invaded?
If Saddam had an atomic bomb, would the Yanks have invaded?