[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It shouldn't necessarily follow that even if one is used against us, that we should retaliate straight back, because there is no good ending in that scenario.

I think you're missing the point a bit; caution should be the first response if they were fired at us, not eagerness for mutually assured destruction.

I get what you're saying, and you are right imo.

But there would be public pressure for Sunak/Starmer to retaliate with nuking the aggressor back, if we were to be attacked with a nuke ourselves.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I get what you're saying, and you are right imo.

But there would be public pressure for Sunak/Starmer to retaliate with nuking the aggressor back, if we were to be attacked with a nuke ourselves.

That's why it takes a stronger person to not give in and pander to the crowd. Let's say it's Russia and we got "fortunate" as it landed down by Plymouth/Exeter, and we got away with the minimal amount of casualties for a nuke, the minute we fired back and their satellites detected our retaliation, they would send over enough to just wipe us out. Because they aren't used, I feel like the power of nukes can seem a bit abstract.

Jeremy was right to show caution when being pressed on this issue during his time as leader, and it is only candidates who are weak (regardless of political persuasion) that need to act as though they're ready to destroy the world to appease the Galahads.