Is it a nuclear deterrent in the sense that it deters a nuclear attack or is it a nuclear deterrent that is in fact nuclear and can/will be used in retaliation to any major attack (Pearl Harbour-sequel)?
How is the second scenario in any way a deterrent?
Do you know what the word deterrent means?
I know it has a different meaning to the word "retaliation".
The question (maybe you didn't read it, in which case, why not do so?) asked if a deterrent something that deters or something that is used as a retaliation.
If there is something against which to retaliate, it can't have deterred. Can it?
I think you're getting a bit hung up on the specific term. Is the nuclear deterrent thing just some PR stuff thrown out by the government to make it sound softer to get more "lefties" on side?
Let's be honest and say it for what it is and what it should be. It's Nuclear Capability. It is available to us should we ever be put in a position where it is deemed necessary to use by the Prime Minister at the time.
Is it a nuclear deterrent in the sense that it deters a nuclear attack or is it a nuclear deterrent that is in fact nuclear and can/will be used in retaliation to any major attack (Pearl Harbour-sequel)?
How is the second scenario in any way a deterrent?
Do you know what the word deterrent means?
I know it has a different meaning to the word "retaliation".
The question (maybe you didn't read it, in which case, why not do so?) asked if a deterrent something that deters or something that is used as a retaliation.
If there is something against which to retaliate, it can't have deterred. Can it?
I believe you're being purposefully obtuse, but the threat of retaliation is quite possibly the best deterrent.
The world changes at a constant and rapid pace, with emerging threats appearing all the time. Nobody knows what state may go rogue and find themselves in possession of nuclear weapons. Pakistan? North Korea? Had Israel not pre-empted Iranian proliferation, would Iran be on that list?
Turkey looks set to be undergoing a huge change at the moment; is it out of the question for a country of their size, and with their aspirations of being a regional power, to acquire nuclear weapons? Not to mention, as @ShootersHillGuru has correctly pointed out, with Putin in control of Russia we are essentially entering a new Cold War.
Renewal of trident is a safety policy for the next 20 or 30 years against just these forms of emerging threat. The only thing certain about tomorrow is the uncertainty of what it holds.
To those who have underlined the fact that our main threats are internal actors: I agree, albeit with the caveat that the threats above still exist and/or could come to fruition. Personally I'd love to see the Home Office getting some cash to ensure that we're not only equipped to prevent another 7/7 for a further 11 years, but we're also equipped to deal rapidly and effectively when our lucky streak eventually ends. Unfortunately the presence of a threat within our own borders doesn't negate the potential of threat outside those borders.
It's a weird proposition: purchasing a weapon of last resort, the type which would only ever be deployed after the nation has already been dealt a crippling blow and been largely obliterated. Sadly, there lies the crux of MAD: you don't attack another nuclear power with nuclear weapons as you're going to consequentially be obliterated.
When people point out that nuclear weapons haven't stopped war, they're right - but they've certainly stopped wars between nuclear states, and they've certainly ensured that everyone who has access to such weapons understands that to press the button is to commit suicide.
Interestingly even during the Cold War, plans for a Soviet Invasion were largely conventional: a war of attrition triggered by pushing sheer numbers through Germany. For a period of time that can be summarised as the world's Nuclear Powers facing each other off, it's rather telling that the plans of aggression still didn't include nuclear weapons as anything other than a retaliatory action.
pakistan already has nuclear weapons, the fact that india also has them has stopped them both going to war with each other, even though tensions between the two are always quite high. Those two countries are great examples of what a good thing a nuclear deterrent is.
As for your cash for the home office, they've already got it, it's the snooper's charter and the GCHQ facility in cornwall. Which is an even bigger waste of money as it's not guaranteed spying on all civilian communications would prevent a 7/7 attack. There's no way of effectively storing and looking through that data at all.
I chose Pakistan precisely because they have nuclear weapons, particularly because despite having nuclear weapons they're the kind of state that should be viewed with suspicion regarding the future. They may be quite allied with the west outwardly, but they have various problems which have even seen the US carrying out drone strikes on their territory. It's not unthinkable for a hostile party to take power there. Similarly, I chose North Korea for similar reasons - whilst their self-proclaimed nuclear weapons may not exist, they could also become an emergent and more-realistic threat. (i.e Firing missiles in to South Korean waters yesterday)
I agree with you with regards to the Snooper's Charter and GCHQ, but my thinking was primarily about pouring money in to other measures - i.e more proactive communications with the communities at risk - as well as ensuring we have a good system for responding to any attacks that do occur. (i.e resources available to more areas of the UK, and not just Manchester and London where most of the exercises appear to be carried out)
Well tbf if Trident is ever used then it has failed in it's objective.
nope, not necessarily.
Go on then...
The act that was passed last night referred to the protection of the U.K. and its allies. If one of our allies was attacked then Trident could be used to protect us and our allies from further attacks, thus being used and fulfilling its purpose.
Well tbf if Trident is ever used then it has failed in it's objective.
nope, not necessarily.
Go on then...
The act that was passed last night referred to the protection of the U.K. and its allies. If one of our allies was attacked then Trident could be used to protect us and our allies from further attacks, thus being used and fulfilling its purpose.
But that surely then still defeats the purpose. It is a deterrent. If a nutcase leader launches an attack on one of our allies knowing that we would then respond with nuclear weapons then the deterrent has not worked.
Well tbf if Trident is ever used then it has failed in it's objective.
nope, not necessarily.
Go on then...
The act that was passed last night referred to the protection of the U.K. and its allies. If one of our allies was attacked then Trident could be used to protect us and our allies from further attacks, thus being used and fulfilling its purpose.
But that surely then still defeats the purpose. It is a deterrent. If a nutcase leader launches an attack on one of our allies knowing that we would then respond with nuclear weapons then the deterrent has not worked.
Is it a nuclear deterrent in the sense that it deters a nuclear attack or is it a nuclear deterrent that is in fact nuclear and can/will be used in retaliation to any major attack (Pearl Harbour-sequel)?
How is the second scenario in any way a deterrent?
Do you know what the word deterrent means?
I know it has a different meaning to the word "retaliation".
The question (maybe you didn't read it, in which case, why not do so?) asked if a deterrent something that deters or something that is used as a retaliation.
If there is something against which to retaliate, it can't have deterred. Can it?
I believe you're being purposefully obtuse, but the threat of retaliation is quite possibly the best deterrent.
Would you classify the Prison system as a failed deterrent because people are current kept in Prison? If so, do you think crime would be of the same rate if we abolished prisons because they're clearly not a deterrent?
Well.. it kinda does in the context of what you're saying. But I agree it's nonsense in reality.
Possessing the capability to retaliate is clearly a deterrent. It's the same in every walk of life; I'm sure weaker looking people get mugged at a greater rate than those who look like they can defend themselves. Nobody wants to strike someone who has the ability to do just as much damage back to them. Extrapolate this example on to a global geo-political level and you have nuclear capabilities and mutually assured destruction.
Now to claim that a deterrent has failed if it's actually used in retaliation completely misses the point: the potential for retaliation is the deterrent. Nobody is going to be prepared to press the "big red button" when they have the knowledge that they're in effect firing it on their own location, and that's what it means: mutually assured destruction. At best a means for keeping the status quo.
With regards to my example about prisons - prisons are first and foremost a deterrent, but as per your logic a deterrent is a failure if it has to be used - as it hasn't deterred anything. This simply isn't true.
@colthe3rd the deterrent issue was dealt with earlier in the thread. It's not just a deterrent if we can potentially use it, but would deter the rogue state from launching weapons against other nuclear nations if we do have to use it.
I think we're arguing the same point here though. Everyone including May has called this a deterrent. That means that it is deterring other nations from using their own WMDs on us or our allies. If one of them does launch with the knowledge that we can retaliate then that is not a deterrent.
I'm not arguing that we wouldn't ever not use it, just the fact as soon as there has been an attack on us or an ally then that deterrent has failed. The retaliation is still clearly an option though.
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
I personally just provided 3 examples.. and explicitly stated the our current world is full of uncertainties that require careful thought.
20 years ago we couldn't have imagined the rise of ISIS, 20 years before that we couldn't have imagined a world without the Soviet Union and the Cold War. A lot can change in the next 20 years and we need all our bases covered for defence.
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
I personally just provided 3 examples.. and explicitly stated the our current world is full of uncertainties that require careful thought.
Which of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea do you mean?
What would their motives be (NK aside)?
As it stands, this is what I think is the case right now:
- North Korea doesn't have and is very very unlikely to gain nuclear capabilities - Turkey already has missiles stationed there because NATO sharing, and wants to join the EU. What would its motive be? - Iran issued a fatwa against their use; is part of NNPT; and has called for disarmament. Again, what realistically would their motive be? As much as they dislike the West, they're reliant on not having sanctions imposed on them by the US etc - When would Pakistan seek to use them? I'm struggling to find a reason - India, similarly, are unlikely to.
What's stopping any country arming themselves with nuclear weapons? Because there are nations who do have nuclear weapons and won't let anyone else have them.
Worldwide disarmament would mean nutters like NK would see this as encouragement to arm themselves. Making them more powerful than other neighbouring nations.
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
I personally just provided 3 examples.. and explicitly stated the our current world is full of uncertainties that require careful thought.
Which of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea do you mean?
What would their motives be (NK aside)?
As it stands, this is what I think is the case right now:
- North Korea doesn't have and is very very unlikely to gain nuclear capabilities - Turkey already has missiles stationed there because NATO sharing, and wants to join the EU. What would its motive be? - Iran issued a fatwa against their use; is part of NNPT; and has called for disarmament. Again, what realistically would their motive be? As much as they dislike the West, they're reliant on not having sanctions imposed on them by the US etc - When would Pakistan seek to use them? I'm struggling to find a reason - India, similarly, are unlikely to.
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
I personally just provided 3 examples.. and explicitly stated the our current world is full of uncertainties that require careful thought.
Which of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea do you mean?
What would their motives be (NK aside)?
As it stands, this is what I think is the case right now:
- North Korea doesn't have and is very very unlikely to gain nuclear capabilities - Turkey already has missiles stationed there because NATO sharing, and wants to join the EU. What would its motive be? - Iran issued a fatwa against their use; is part of NNPT; and has called for disarmament. Again, what realistically would their motive be? As much as they dislike the West, they're reliant on not having sanctions imposed on them by the US etc - When would Pakistan seek to use them? I'm struggling to find a reason - India, similarly, are unlikely to.
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
I personally just provided 3 examples.. and explicitly stated the our current world is full of uncertainties that require careful thought.
Which of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea do you mean?
What would their motives be (NK aside)?
As it stands, this is what I think is the case right now:
- North Korea doesn't have and is very very unlikely to gain nuclear capabilities - Turkey already has missiles stationed there because NATO sharing, and wants to join the EU. What would its motive be? - Iran issued a fatwa against their use; is part of NNPT; and has called for disarmament. Again, what realistically would their motive be? As much as they dislike the West, they're reliant on not having sanctions imposed on them by the US etc - When would Pakistan seek to use them? I'm struggling to find a reason - India, similarly, are unlikely to.
With regards to your points:
1. You're incorrect. North Korea does have the capabilities - or at least is not that far off. The Nuclear Threat Initiative highlights this quite well, documenting their abilities and history of testing different devices.
2. Perhaps a week ago your points regarding Turkey may have stood, but check out the thread on their coup. If you believe Ergodan really cares about EU membership anymore then you're wrong, and he'll demonstrate this within the next few days when he finally reimposes the death penalty. His spokesperson has also called out the US and suggested they were involved in the coup. As for the NATO weapon store, do you mean the one that Turkish police and soldiers searched in relation to the coup yesterday? Turkey is precisely the form of uncertainty I refer to.
3. I never mentioned Iran in the list, but said had Israel not made it clear that they would pre-empt any proliferation of weapons (much akin to their 1981 attack on an Iraqi power plant.) then I think Iran would've been a viable inclusion on it. NNPT aside, look up Ahmadinejad's reign over Iran - he may not have been the bogeyman he was portrayed to have been, but there was a reason behind the distrust. Talking about The West as you announce a successful long-range missile programme does not endear you to over leaders, nor does it inspire trust. I'm firmly of the believe Iran is turning a new leaf, hell - I'm currently working for a company that relies up Iranian Oil transactions; with the sanctions in place 8 months ago this would've been impossible.
4. I genuinely don't think referring to Pakistan as the home of religious extremism is that unfair, it has various millitant factions along the Afghan border - including a Pakistani Taliban. It's unable to control it's own territories hence why the US ended up conducting their own drone raids in the area. Then there's the senior military officers that have since claimed that they took an active role in training and supporting terrorism operations elsewhere. Does a country with such an extremism problem, an inability to control it's own territories and a penchant for state-sponsored terrorism, really seem like a safe pair of hands for Nuclear Weapons? Be it via domestic instability or even governmental changes, it's not difficult to see dangerous possibilities, and it's terrifying to think that Pakistan possesses these weapons.
No-one seems to have considered the current political climate, and indeed the political climate since the end of the Cold War, in all this talk about deterrence and everything.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
I personally just provided 3 examples.. and explicitly stated the our current world is full of uncertainties that require careful thought.
Which of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea do you mean?
What would their motives be (NK aside)?
As it stands, this is what I think is the case right now:
- North Korea doesn't have and is very very unlikely to gain nuclear capabilities - Turkey already has missiles stationed there because NATO sharing, and wants to join the EU. What would its motive be? - Iran issued a fatwa against their use; is part of NNPT; and has called for disarmament. Again, what realistically would their motive be? As much as they dislike the West, they're reliant on not having sanctions imposed on them by the US etc - When would Pakistan seek to use them? I'm struggling to find a reason - India, similarly, are unlikely to.
Christ you're talking like you're an expert on these issues for god sake.
Paddy says it's unlikely from North Korea so happy days... Really?
Paddy struggles to find a reason why Pakistan would use them, so I guess that rules them out.
I think I'll leave it to people with a tad more experience, knowledge and insight into such matters.
Disclaimer: if it turns out you work highly up in govt, secret service etc I take it all back.
Comments
The question (maybe you didn't read it, in which case, why not do so?) asked if a deterrent something that deters or something that is used as a retaliation.
If there is something against which to retaliate, it can't have deterred. Can it?
Let's be honest and say it for what it is and what it should be. It's Nuclear Capability. It is available to us should we ever be put in a position where it is deemed necessary to use by the Prime Minister at the time.
I agree with you with regards to the Snooper's Charter and GCHQ, but my thinking was primarily about pouring money in to other measures - i.e more proactive communications with the communities at risk - as well as ensuring we have a good system for responding to any attacks that do occur. (i.e resources available to more areas of the UK, and not just Manchester and London where most of the exercises appear to be carried out)
It's the same logic, but far greater stakes.
Possessing the capability to retaliate is clearly a deterrent. It's the same in every walk of life; I'm sure weaker looking people get mugged at a greater rate than those who look like they can defend themselves. Nobody wants to strike someone who has the ability to do just as much damage back to them. Extrapolate this example on to a global geo-political level and you have nuclear capabilities and mutually assured destruction.
Now to claim that a deterrent has failed if it's actually used in retaliation completely misses the point: the potential for retaliation is the deterrent. Nobody is going to be prepared to press the "big red button" when they have the knowledge that they're in effect firing it on their own location, and that's what it means: mutually assured destruction. At best a means for keeping the status quo.
With regards to my example about prisons - prisons are first and foremost a deterrent, but as per your logic a deterrent is a failure if it has to be used - as it hasn't deterred anything. This simply isn't true.
I'm not arguing that we wouldn't ever not use it, just the fact as soon as there has been an attack on us or an ally then that deterrent has failed. The retaliation is still clearly an option though.
I cannot envisage a situation in the future where nuclear weapons would ever be necessary. Even with the rise of Al Qaeda and then ISIL, neither operation seems to have the potential to get into a position where missiles would be available to them (I have no doubt they'd consider their use by the way).
I also cannot see Russia or China wanting to use nuclear weapons any time soon. There appears to be no reason to do so.
North Korea? Lol nope. Israel? Again, no.
So, personally I want nuclear disarmament from the UK, and ideally unilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe - because these weapons are absolutely devastating. But they're my two cents.
On the flip side, I have absolute respect that Theresa May said she'd activate Trident should it be necessary, because the fact is we do currently have a nuclear arsenal, so she should be willing to use it.
(In fact, if I were ever PM and Trident was voted for by Parliament then I would be prepared to use it based on the system's democratic mandate but that's a bit of an aside in terms of my political philosophy)
What would their motives be (NK aside)?
As it stands, this is what I think is the case right now:
- North Korea doesn't have and is very very unlikely to gain nuclear capabilities
- Turkey already has missiles stationed there because NATO sharing, and wants to join the EU. What would its motive be?
- Iran issued a fatwa against their use; is part of NNPT; and has called for disarmament. Again, what realistically would their motive be? As much as they dislike the West, they're reliant on not having sanctions imposed on them by the US etc
- When would Pakistan seek to use them? I'm struggling to find a reason - India, similarly, are unlikely to.
Worldwide disarmament would mean nutters like NK would see this as encouragement to arm themselves. Making them more powerful than other neighbouring nations.
1. You're incorrect. North Korea does have the capabilities - or at least is not that far off. The Nuclear Threat Initiative highlights this quite well, documenting their abilities and history of testing different devices.
2. Perhaps a week ago your points regarding Turkey may have stood, but check out the thread on their coup. If you believe Ergodan really cares about EU membership anymore then you're wrong, and he'll demonstrate this within the next few days when he finally reimposes the death penalty. His spokesperson has also called out the US and suggested they were involved in the coup. As for the NATO weapon store, do you mean the one that Turkish police and soldiers searched in relation to the coup yesterday? Turkey is precisely the form of uncertainty I refer to.
3. I never mentioned Iran in the list, but said had Israel not made it clear that they would pre-empt any proliferation of weapons (much akin to their 1981 attack on an Iraqi power plant.) then I think Iran would've been a viable inclusion on it. NNPT aside, look up Ahmadinejad's reign over Iran - he may not have been the bogeyman he was portrayed to have been, but there was a reason behind the distrust. Talking about The West as you announce a successful long-range missile programme does not endear you to over leaders, nor does it inspire trust. I'm firmly of the believe Iran is turning a new leaf, hell - I'm currently working for a company that relies up Iranian Oil transactions; with the sanctions in place 8 months ago this would've been impossible.
4. I genuinely don't think referring to Pakistan as the home of religious extremism is that unfair, it has various millitant factions along the Afghan border - including a Pakistani Taliban. It's unable to control it's own territories hence why the US ended up conducting their own drone raids in the area. Then there's the senior military officers that have since claimed that they took an active role in training and supporting terrorism operations elsewhere. Does a country with such an extremism problem, an inability to control it's own territories and a penchant for state-sponsored terrorism, really seem like a safe pair of hands for Nuclear Weapons? Be it via domestic instability or even governmental changes, it's not difficult to see dangerous possibilities, and it's terrifying to think that Pakistan possesses these weapons.
Paddy says it's unlikely from North Korea so happy days... Really?
Paddy struggles to find a reason why Pakistan would use them, so I guess that rules them out.
I think I'll leave it to people with a tad more experience, knowledge and insight into such matters.
Disclaimer: if it turns out you work highly up in govt, secret service etc I take it all back.
The question for me is not whether a nuclear deterrent that the UK part owns is right but rather what form should that take?