Originally posted by AThousandYoungthe very definition of "grounds for termination".
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter [2006], calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no long ...[text shortened]... d with concrete.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?currentPage=2
3 edits
just to explain this thread. I made a point about the UKs funding of trident,
sh76 replied...
The comments on iran are not particularly relevant and are mostly from cyber trolls who may well have posted 5 more pages of crap by the time i wake .
This site needs a block button ...
But please if you want to comment on the original post or something relevant, do.
Originally posted by Black Star UchessLet me get this straight. You want to talk about the U.K. deterrent but posters aren't allowed to mention who specifically might be deterred by it, how deterrence has worked in the past for the U.K., who are the perceived threats to the U.K., what countries have the bomb, the relevence of MAD in 2010, what proliferation there has been or is currently occurring? This is all dismissed as 'cyber-trolling'?
But please if you want to comment on the original post or something relevant, do.
And then, suggesting that freestanding MAD does not really apply to the U.K. ( in what scenario would the U.K. be under threat and NATO not? ) and that having an independent nuclear arsenal is an anachronism, as well as stating that any nuclear deterrent against threats from nation states should be a coordinated European or NATO effort, is dismissed as 'cyber-trolling'?
One wonders if we have read the same OP.
Originally posted by Black Star Uchessi wonder if sh76 will have a dream about floating in crap ...
just to explain this thread. I made a point about the UKs funding of trident,
sh76 replied...
The comments on iran are not particularly relevant and are mostly from cyber trolls who may well have posted 5 more pages of crap by the time i wake .
This site needs a block button ...
But please if you want to comment on the original post or something relevant, do.
Originally posted by zeeblebotNot really. To me it's a bog standard "manly" net-pose ["grounds for termination", I can even hear the gravelly generic PlayStation voiceover now], off the shelf, living and breathing cliche. 1.5 volt 'fun' not included.
bet you had fun imagining THAT
2 edits
I will humour your comments on Iran .
I think these rogue states provide a good reason for Europe to maintain a form of nuclear deterrent.
But the UK doing exactly what it tells Iran not to doesn't help. If Europe consolidates it's systems then you have: The same level of defence, non proliferation, a much lower cost and an even better reason to lobby Iran and others to stop.