SWOTBM
Posts: 1955
Joined: 6/5/2007
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: moontheloon quote:
ORIGINAL: SWOTBM That figure seems a bit high. This is one of those policies that I'm not sure I agree with the Lib Dems on. I think we need a nuclear deterrent, maybe not now but in the future it might be needed. Better to be safe than sorry imo. I hate to say this but I think you're wrong. No country really wants a nuclear war, the closest we've come is arguably the Cuban missile crisis and in that both the Russians and the Americans did everything they could to avoid having to use nuclear weapons against each other with both sides making concessions that they did not want to. I think we're much more at danger of a bomb simply being set off in the middle of a city rather than a missile launch. I don't quite know how we can build a system to stop this type of bombing, and I don't even think that it's that likely. I'm all for disarmament, I think someone needs to start it, as no country seems willing to disarm unless all other countries follow suit. Nuclear disarmament is just one big prisoner's dilemma, so I cant ever see complete nuclear disarmament happening. Sure it is in the best interests of all countries to disarm, but no one wants to be the first to get rid of their nuclear weapons (and with countries like Russia, China, India and Pakistan I cant ever see them giving up their nuclear weapons). I agree with you that most countries do not want a nuclear war (it is a weapon of last resort) and at the moment we may not need a nuclear deterrent. But if ten years down the line circumstances change and we dont have a nuclear deterrent, then we are pretty screwed. I would rather not take that chance.
_____________________________
PSN: light_brigade Gamertag: chauders
|