Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Helgoland]

Note that it was rejected by almost 18 000 people, out of an electorate of only 20 000.

It's pretty much the same on the Falklands - yet still all of South America believes those rocks belong to Argentina.
There's just no talking to nationalists :/

[Owlbread]

Argentina is guilty of concentrating far too much on the islands themselves and treating their population as an afterthought. Their talk of decolonization is noble if terribly self serving and expansionist, but the self determination of the Falkland Islanders cannot be trampled over.

Our dear friend "Gorgeous" George Galloway had an opinion of the Islands that is sure to go down a treat. He compared them to a village stopping a motorway getting built; they just have to be moved aside in the name of progress.

Irredentism is a curious thing that almost always overlooks the rights of the people in the disputed territory. Ireland springs to mind - popular referenda are the only way to determine the future of the British part of Ulster, not violence that eschews democratic process. Though there are several places in England that should be Scottish in my opinion that doesn't mean I would trample over their right to choose what nation they belong to.

[Dutchling]

Why would the Argentinians care for the people on the islands? I thought there was oil there.

[Owlbread]

Why would the Argentinians care for the people on the islands? I thought there was oil there.

Because it's the right thing to do.

[LordSlowpoke]

Why would the Argentinians care for the people on the islands? I thought there was oil there.

Because it's the right thing to do.

It's pretty much agreed upon that the right thing to do does not matter when oil is involved. I don't think I need to point out this entire century to you?

[Owlbread]

It's pretty much agreed upon that the right thing to do does not matter when oil is involved. I don't think I need to point out this entire century to you?

It's an unspoken agreement made by horrible self-serving greedy bastards. That doesn't make it right if they think it is - you and I know it isn't.

[ChairmanPoo]

Irredentism is a curious thing that almost always overlooks the rights of the people in the disputed territory. Ireland springs to mind - popular referenda are the only way to determine the future of the British part of Ulster, not violence that eschews democratic process. Though there are several places in England that should be Scottish in my opinion that doesn't mean I would trample over their right to choose what nation they belong to.

quoted for truth. You've echoed my (general) feelings about this matter.

[Sheb]

Why the UK have no use for a nuclear deterrent.

So on the Progressive Thread, Loud Whisper started defending the idea that the UK need Trident.

Well, first of all, other countries without NATO seems to do just as well without a deterrent. Germany is happy without nukes (And with spending only 1.4% of GDP on defense, compared to the UK's 2.5). Turkey, in an unstable neighborhood is just as happy without nukes of its own.

Why is it so? The classic argument for nukes, that they deter attacks, seems at best an half-truth, since nukeless NATO countries have done just as well as the UK.

In fact, the nukes don't deter much. They don't deter terrorists, and they didn't deter Argentina back in 1982. It's logical after all: the UK weren't going to nuke Dublin to piss off the IRA or to turn Buenos Aires into a pile of ash for a few rocks no one had heard of before. The bombers and Argentines knew it and weren't deterred.

So what do nuke deters, if they deter anything at all? Well, to find out, you have to ask yourself, under what circumstance would the UK use its nukes? The only event I could think of would be a full-scale Russian invasion. Now, a Russian invasion is already deterred by the fact that NATO totally outgun it in conventional weaponry. And if Russia dare use its nuke against European targets, we can be pretty sure the French will stop eating cheese long enough to blow up Moscow and St Petersburg.

The fact is that large-power wars aren't going to happen anytime soon, especially for as long as we totally outgun all our neighbor conventionally. That's why you see all the European army getting smaller, leaner with a focus on force projection and peace-keeping: there is not much need for old-school armies anymore. We need scalpel, not hammers. And the Trident sledgehammer is a thing of the past.

[Zangi]

Don't forget the Chinese army, they are boogiemen too.

[10ebbor10]

As I a said in the other thread, both Germany and Turkey are nuclear powers. They're not recognized, but they certainly are. (Germany even has missile bases and the infrastructure + knowhow to build missiles. )

However, point is that a large, full scale war isn't affordable anymore. (Neither politically nor economically)

[Sheb]

They have US missiles on their soils, and maybe some tactical weapons they're using (like Belgium), but AFAIK they don't have the codes, and the weapons are managed by the US army, with the Germans and Turks only doing the delivery of the tactical weapons.

So they're totally dependent on the US deterrent, even if I doubt it actually deter much.

[10ebbor10]

Germany has 2 operational nuclear missile bases, a third one on standby, and actually fabricate' s France's Nuclear weaponry, so they kinda have the knowledge and material to make more.

The bases belong to the US though. We may have the knowledge to build nukes, but neither public opinion nor international treaties (it was actually a point in the re-unification treaty) would allow us to do so.

Actually, nukes (or at least components) are being build in Germany. A significant amount of French warheads are build in a Germany, by the EADS (France-Germany-Spain joint venture).

They have US missiles on their soils, and maybe some tactical weapons they're using (like Belgium), but AFAIK they don't have the codes, and the weapons are managed by the US army, with the Germans and Turks only doing the delivery of the tactical weapons.

So they're totally dependent on the US deterrent, even if I doubt it actually deter much.

UN deterrent, technically.The procedure would be that the codes would be released after a nuclear strike against the UN. Which makes nearly no difference as no nation is going to launch without having at least some support in the UN.

[Owlbread]

To quote a former leading member of CND in the UK, Trident is like Britain's stick-on hairy chest.

[MonkeyHead]

A smaller nation (as in anyone other than the BIG THREE of US, Russia and China) is simply posing by having them. They will never need them in anger, and those they have are probably not fit to make a big impact in a full on nuclear war. This leads me to conclude that having them is the sole reason for having them.

[Sheb]

10ebbor10, what do you mean UN deterrent? The UN doesn't own missiles, support within the UN in case of conflict would be non-existant, as every major power can veto stuff, and I'm pretty sure we're going to retaliate even if the baddies don't strike the UN headquarters in NY.

You mean NATO maybe?