I would prefer to break said defence pact.
Wot
If the automatic rifle was capable of killing the murderer even after the citizen was murdered and there was a big flashy sign following him saying [you will die if you kill me] then the argument sort of applies.
I would have thought that MAD could extend to a situation where two people were evenly matched.
They are? They both die.
Also it's not so much a catastrophe that is the big fear [well it is, but you can't really do much once you're dead], it's a deterrent. No one will seek to take advantage of you if you are capable of holding your own.
We aren't, however. We're prioritising our nuclear defence system and our armed forces (despite the cuts) as opposed to our Navy, who urgently need more funding. We would struggle to defend our overseas territories in the event of another conflict.
Relevant quote is relevant:
I honestly can't comment too much on the future of the UK post independence. The thing is though, the UK already can't really protect its overseas territories with the focus our government has put on the army rather than the Navy.
The focus has been on the army because of the degradation of the expeditionary force, within this decade we could be seeing the two largest ships ever created by the Royal Navy and the astute class submarines have been sailing since 2011, it looks functional for the first time since the harriers were scrapped. The UK can as of now, but Scotland's independence could change that. What immediately comes to mind is the loss of a quarter or so of naval bases, but then there are also things about the loss of specialist recruits and training centers alongside production facilities. Moreso when the modern ships of the fleet are not built in one shipyard and the modern aircraft aren't even built in one country. An easy example would be the Queen Elizabeth which is currently in Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.
As long as the UK maintains its blue water navy and its nuclear projection capabilities, its clay, allies and ports will always be lively and protected.
Submarines are the cheapest delivery form, the Royal Navy's subs are nigh on undetectable and can operate in all open seas in addition to arctic environments and they also cannot be preemptively destroyed by other nukes. They provide no target. They are as has been said before, the gun that cannot be fired because their purpose is to warn people off that a firefight cannot begin in the first place.
A firefight that would never begin in the first place. Even if they are the cheapest delivery form, they are far too expensive.
How so? They are a small fraction of most cost effective method of maintaining the most amount of military power from the defence budget for a country whose military budget is actually in proportion. It is absurd to say they are far too expensive, we are not America. And America's nukes aren't even what drains their defence budget, their defence budgets surmounts to $683 billion and the NNSA's separate budget surmounts to $11 billion. I could see the argument for downsizing the conventional armed forces including the nuclear stockpile, whilst maintaining operational capabilities for both, but the great thing about this is it is what I see, it is what is happening.
I would not leave sole control to America were it my decision, especially in light of their recent willingness to sell the serial numbers of the UKs current nuclear warheads. To maintain world peace, nuclear weapons must remain known to the world in the hands of a few stable countries.
I disagree, I believe that forming international police forces who would hunt down those who would seek to create nuclear bombs is a preferable course of action.
And until that even becomes a possibility, nukes.
There are a lot of people the UK has sworn to defend, some of them neighbours to popular bogeymen,
I would scrap as many of those treaties as I could and start again from a clean slate.
Wooooaat
but the principle will stay the same; we know little about what the future will look like. Once you lose nukes you will not regain them, and if you ever come into conflict with a nuclear power where you have none you are stuffed. Georgia isn't faring well looking at Russia on their rightful clay. The East is coming into conflict with the South-East, leading to instability and the possible restriction of sea lanes. It is the role of the Royal Navy to ensure that Britain's sea lanes are always open, and having a vast navy will mean nothing if you have no nuclear capability to contend with opposing
Instability, instability, instability. Nothing tangible. I keep hearing about shaky situations, but nothing that could possibly go nuclear or warrant waving the nuclear submarines in our enemy's face.
Tankers coming in from Qatar pass through at least the Straits of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mendeb, Suez, Gibraltar, Dover. Let's say China and Iran decided to try shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, maybe just setting up mines in it to hell and back. enjoying their new pipeline. Will they allow British tankers through if they have the backing of nukes, or no nukes?