Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

So what's the point in nuclear weapons if we are worried about a war without nuclear weappons?

28 replies

cakeorwine · 04/02/2024 17:00

All this talk of WW3 at the moment. The UK not having enough troops, weapons etc

We do have nuclear weapons though. Submarines capable of launching missiles and with orders to potentially destroy targets if the UK gets attacked.

However - when do we fire them? Russia invades a NATO country. We don't fire back.

Salami tactics and all.

However - we need weapons because other countries have weapons. So it's a deterrent. '
A deterrent against nuclear attack.
But against invasion?
Cyber attack?
I guess people know the salami tactic discussion from Yes Prime Minister

Yes Prime Minister - Salami Tactics and Nuclear Deterrent

Yes Prime Minister - Salami Tactics and Nuclear Deterrent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4

OP posts:
fleurneige · 04/02/2024 17:58

This was written a few years back ''Perhaps the most frightening thing about nuclear deterrence is its many paths to failure. Contrary to what is widely assumed, the least likely is a ‘bolt out of the blue’ (BOOB) attack. Meanwhile, there are substantial risks associated with escalated conventional war, accidental or unauthorised use, irrational use (although it can be argued that any use of nuclear weapons would be irrational) or false alarms, which have happened with frightening regularity, and could lead to ‘retaliation’ against an attack that hadn’t happened. There have also been numerous ‘broken arrow’ accidents – accidental launching, firing, theft or loss of a nuclear weapon – as well as circumstances in which such events as a flock of geese, a ruptured gas pipeline or faulty computer codes have been interpreted as a hostile missile launch.
The above describes only some of the inadequacies and outright dangers posed by deterrence, the doctrinal fulcrum that manipulates nuclear hardware, software, deployments, accumulation and escalation. Undoing the ideology – verging on theology – of deterrence won’t be easy, but neither is living under the threat of worldwide annihilation. As the poet T S Eliot once wrote, unless you are in over your head, how do you know how tall you are? And when it comes to nuclear deterrence, we’re all in over our heads.
This essay was originally published in Aeon''

So much more dangerous now in such a volatile and aggressive climate, in the Middle East, and with Russia and China, etc.

Aeon | a world of ideas

Aeon is a magazine of ideas and culture. We publish in-depth essays from the world's most incisive and ambitious thinkers, and a mix of original and curated videos — free to all.

https://aeon.co/

Vegetus · 04/02/2024 18:20

cakeorwine · 04/02/2024 17:57

Nuclear weapons won't save us from invasion - or even an attack on a NATO country.

Who on earth do you think is going to invade us 😂

OhmygodDont · 04/02/2024 18:25

Didn’t we move a load of weapons recently. There’s been a lot of activity at a local
raf base…

the biggest stupid thing is to rely on anyone else to protect your country. Ok so the us has more nukes but really what are we to them and honestly what is say Ukraine to the U.K. if push come to shove.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page