+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You also loaded it for your argument. The truth is we cannot know for certain that our nuclear weapons have prevented any attacks on the UK. However, the fact is that the nuclear option has been exercised twice in 71 years - and only a handful of countries have the bomb. There have been countless wars during the period, although none have carried the possibility of the nuclear powers being invaded. I think that has as much to do with the treaties and pacts that were drawn up post World War 2 as anything else. That's just my opinion.
The Sun once reported that, in the event of a nuclear strike, the BBC would screen "The Sound of Music" to raise the nation's morale. Whilst the PM has her finger on the button, it is doubtful that the BBC have their finger on the button.
To add to my post, I reckon it's far more certain that, given the history of nuclear attacks, the likelihood that one is carried out will be down to a madman with little regard for anyone bar his inner circle, not through normal warfare. I believe that Trident is far less likely to be a deterrent to an attack than not having Trident is likely to cause an attack.
It won't definitely save lives, but might (the might is the important part you keep ignoring).
In my opinion that's worth spending money on, clearly not your opinion.
I guess human life has different values to both of us.
I guess you thought wrong (not for the first time) .
Oh dear, still attacking the arguer and not the argument. This time you're dressing me up as someone with a drink problem. Great effort -.
You loaded your argument in EXACTLY the same way as Eric. All you have done is state your opinion, just as Eric did. You have no real facts to back up your argument, neither does Eric. We cannot know whether the presence of nukes has stopped the UK from being invaded.
Loading arguments isn't really a problem - everyone does it, even you ;-)
Last edited by Badly Ironed Shirt; 26-07-16 at 08:50.