[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is a valid point.

I am open to keeping nuclear weapons but I do have concerns as to the costs of doing so..

The Falklands conflict could have never been settled with nuclear weaponry in 1982.
Even with them still now, a similar conflict could not be settled with them still.

However, a similar invasion of the Falklands now,would see the UK stranded in effect, not able to do what it did in 1982 at all,due to the heavy cuts to the UKs armed forces and equipment.
So having nuclear weapons wouldn't stop that if say Argentina wished to invade again,yet despite having all that might, we could do just about nothing this time to protect the Falklands.

The point I was making when I mentioned the Falklands is that we went to the UN and asked for assistance, and even our closest allies told as to **** off, you are on your own. That was an invasion of sovereign British territory, and no-one gave a damn. The point being, you can't rely on anyone else to have your back in a war situation, you may get help and assistance, you may not. Thats why you need all the protective measures you can get.