Can someone please tell me why the UK needs a Nuke?
In what scenario is having a nuke useful?
I cant see any any situation where the UK would fire a nuke first, and if we get hit by a nuke retaliation seems pointless because we will already be mostly dead.
>country literally invents the term kek
>offspring don't see anything wrong with being a geopolitical kek
>how the mighty have fallen
>>55565974
are you scottish?
>>55565974
mutual assured destruction ?
>>55565974
Can someone please tell me why the UK doesn't need a Nuke?
In what scenario is not having a nuke useful?
I can see many situations where the UK would fire a nuke first, and if we get hit by a nuke retaliation seems like a good deterrent for the aggressor
>>55565974
>In what scenario is having a nuke useful?
A scenario in which we cannot run crying to the Americans, like at the start of WWII.
The defence policy of most Eropean countries is simply to conduct small/token operations and then run crying to the yanks if anything seriously goes pear shaped. The UK and France are the two possible exceptions to that rule. We need to learn to take care of ourselves again and spend a decent ammount on defence instead of blowing it all on welfare and >muh NHS because the Americans may not be around forever or just don't have any reason to get involved in European affairs.
>if we get hit by a nuke retaliation seems pointless because we will already be mostly dead.
Implying the country that nuked us deserves to live on and go unscathed.
"I cant see any any situation where the UK would fire a nuke first"
Why don't you do some reasearch before spouting off your opinions?
Trident is per definition a second strike weapon. It's intended to retaliate after an enemy first strike. It thus deters the enemy from trying to strike you first because there will always be a hard to detect submarine somewhere launching a retaliatory wave of warheads.
what if you want to nuke yourself when things get too bad
>>55566330
Does the Netherlands have a Nuke?
>>55565974
Spoken like a true (uck.
>>55565974
Because if you didnt have nukes we would nuke you for Lexington and Concord
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>55565974
To remain relevant.
Trips in every post!!!!
>>55565974
>In what scenario is having a nuke useful?
in case those nips try some sneaky chink shit again
>>55566409
When there's a mosque on every corner, and a madrassa in every village, it will be the only solution left to cleanse the kebabs.
I read in a newspaper article once that Thatcher threatened the French, that they would nuke Argentina, if France didn't hand over the Exocet-Codes during the Falklands War.
>>55566459
It's a public secret that there are some 30 nuclear boms/warheads at airbase Volkel.
>>55565974
Nukes are deterrents to attacking us, then virtually gaurantee mutual destruction if people make a move for our territory. That's what the majority of the cold war was about, stockpiling nuke.
And generally speaking for people who are rational this is a great defence, only when these things get in the hand of irrational people such as the religious do we have a problem.
>>55565974
>In what scenario is having a nuke useful?
MAD
>>55565974
Stupid Scottish cunt.
As another anon pointed out, nukes are not meant to be used. The sheer damage and power of them is the deterrent needed to stop others from using them against you.
Again, they are submarine launched missiles, meaning they are second strike, so no one should fire at us unless they don't want to be vaporised.
Fucking Scots, the lot of you need nuking just for existing.
>mfw people will think you're English.
I despair, I truly do. Death to Scotland!
>if we get hit by a nuke retaliation seems pointless because we will already be mostly dead.
lolno
1 nuke can't take out 65 million people.
>>55567034
Aren't Scots renown for their fighting spirit even in the modern era?
Because having nukes is a nuclear deterrent. Two countries with the capability to obliterate one another at the push of the button will generally not come into open conflict. Nuclear weapons have done more for world peace than a thousand ghandis or Martin Luther kings ever could, or will.
>>55566733
/thread
Nuke club is the adult table of the world. Everyone else eats at the kiddie table
>>55567049
but suppose baldric that enemy has *more* than one nuke.
>>55567414
Where does North Korea fit in?
>>55565974
>I cant see any any situation where the UK would fire a nuke first, and if we get hit by a nuke retaliation seems pointless because we will already be mostly dead.
The entire point of mutually assured destruction is that nobody is crazy enough to nuke anyone who'd nuke them back.
>>55567585
What about shitty middle eastern countries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
We might not always be around to save you, dad.
On the same side of the coin, just realize that the country with the most powerful military and most advanced nuclear arsenal is being taken over by pavement apes and MS13 gangbangers. Thank God every day that you have something, anything, to point back at them in 50-60 years.
>>55565974
If you nuke anybody there is a chance that radiation comes back to you anyway through wind or food. Depends too what kind of nuke it is really. I really don't think UK needs a nuke, since it hosts their enemies on streets. What would modern UK army look like anyway? Made out of Hindus, Muslims, Polish and some native British, then who they are going to attack? They already lost when they became such a mixed bunch.
>>55567472
the token affirmative action person
>>55565974
If sat on your front porch with a AR-15, you would be significantly less likely to be robbed.
