Yes. The problem is the threats are coming from people who rather like the idea of armageddon.

“Socialist inspired employment legislation” No idea what you mean by that – I am not aware of any legislation to give employees a stake in anything – but it’s refreshing that you see socialism as inspiring. You’ll be reading something other than the Torygraph soon! 😉

Re. all of us still being here, you get my point about the daft leopard story? It doesn’t demonstrate anything that there was no WWIII. Other arguments are needed to confirm, with hindsight, the validity of a deterrent in the absence of an attack, and they necessarily involve an element of ‘what if’.

HOWEVER the first part was not meant facetiously. I have nothing but respect for all those who served, and did so for all the right reasons.

There are limits to that, of course. It was a paid job, too. I do not hold with the ‘every one a hero’ bull.

Has anyone seen that piece by the Vulcan Captain turned CND activist in the current ‘Aeroplane’?

Not sure either way, myself.

😀

It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.

I am perhaps unfairly reminded of a scenario my lecturer in formal logic ran by us. Two chaps on a bus in Hull. One is constantly pouring vinegar into his pockets. The other says ‘Sorry, I have to ask – why are you doing that”?
“Keeps the Leopards away, doesn’t it”
“But you don’t get Leopards in East Yorkshire. In Western Europe at all, in fact”
“Yep. Bloody effective, isn’t it’?

CH, that’s interesting stuff – yes, I can see that annoying Vladimir.

On the previous, I’m struggling with the “Nukes are only an effective deterrent against countries that can nuke you back” point. I am presuming that I have misunderstood.. not the first time.

If the argument is they guard against a first strike by a nutter, the problem is we’re talking about a nutter..

While I agree with a lot of this, the move on the Crimea could easily have happened if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons. As a deterrent, how would they have worked? Nuke the Crimea.. or Moscow? What would that achieve?

Putin sent anonymous Russian units to the Crimea, to take over local infrastructure and government. In the first scenario you’d kill them – and everybody else there as well. In the second they’d just become murderous. We didn’t nuke either the Falklands or Buenos Aires in 82, for the same obvious-when-you-think-it-through reasons.

Putin wouldn’t have given a toss about the Ukranian nuclear arsenal in the context his strategy regarding the Crimea, as Galtieri didn’t about ours.

If anyone takes a single news outlet with a known political bias and sets it up as some sort of source of truth (or worse ‘common sense’) then they are fooling themselves.

Meanwhile, the only newspaper in the UK without a professed political leaning and an agenda of independent thinking.. the Independent.. is quietly disappearing almost without anyone even noticing.

If you met me you’d recognise the nervous twitch.