[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Nuclear war itself is a deterrent for nuclear attacks, nobody of sound mind would actually launch a nuke at another country because everyone knows that would lead to the end of us all....well almost everyone it seems.

Trident is a waste of money, deterrents do nothing to stop a nuke that's on it's way. It should be common sense to invest money into Anti-missile technology instead because in a situation where we have been nuked, Trident does nothing but offer up a revenge attack which is meaningless to the people affected by the nuke in the first place.

Honestly, it should be quite simple to understand.

The risk of a revenge attack is a deterrent.

If there is no risk of retaliation, attackers have a lot less to lose.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The risk of a revenge attack is a deterrent.

If there is no risk of retaliation, attackers have a lot less to lose.

Trident isn't our only nuclear launchers so it's not like we couldn't respond with a nuke without Trident and like I said before, I don't think anyone that is insane enough to fire off a nuke at a country with nuclear capabilities probably doesn't care about the prospect of a revenge attack.

Deterrents won't work in a situation like that. We need actual defensive systems. Trident should be retired and replaced.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Trident isn't our only nuclear launchers so it's not like we couldn't respond with a nuke without Trident and like I said before, I don't think anyone that is insane enough to fire off a nuke at a country with nuclear capabilities probably doesn't care about the prospect of a revenge attack.

Deterrents won't work in a situation like that. We need actual defensive systems. Trident should be retired and replaced.

It's the word 'probably' that concerns me there. When it comes to security I prefer certainties.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It's the word 'probably' that conserns me there. When it comes to security I prefer certainties.

So you're trying to invalidate a valid opinion based on the terminology of one word?

Deterrents don't work on someone intent on attacking, that's just common sense. Trident is flawed because it relies on all the other nuclear powers not being insane. I'd much rather have something that is capable of averting an nuke rather than a flawed deterrent that can't do anything if the worst happens.