captain red dog wrote:Moggy wrote:The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.
With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.
When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.
But the scenario that Russia would use them on us is so unlikely that it isn't worth considering. If a superpower like the USSR didn't use them at the height of the cold war, there is no benefit in issuing a statement of mutually assured destruction against them today. It's counter productive if anything.
States like North Korea will not give a strawberry float either way.
You're arguing for disarmament, as I said that's a valid argument but is a completely different discussion.
If we are going to have nukes, then we have to say we are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are absolutely pointless. It's like having a burglar alarm but putting a sign next to it that reads "The alarm doesn't work, we're not at home and the keys are under the mat". You'd have been better off just not putting the alarm on the wall.