'Prime Minister, did you know?': Theresa May dodges 'nuclear cover-up' question FOUR times

[RVFHarrier]

[QUOTE=Crumpet;51715519]because i'd be far more worried about the one coming towards us than ensuring the deaths of millions who likely had no part in firing it in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Your argument against a deterrent already assumes the deterrent fails.

The point of a deterrent is not to ensure catastrophic destruction of military and civilian infrastructure. The point is that, simply by being capable of doing so, it prevents a strike being launched against us in the first place.

You say you're more worried about the ones coming towards us, so apply that same logic to every other nuclear power.

[Metallics]

[QUOTE=Crumpet;51715519]because i'd be far more worried about the one coming towards us than ensuring the deaths of millions who likely had no part in firing it in the first place.[/QUOTE]

The idea being the first one is never fired for the fact we will return the favour

[Crumpets]

I understand the concept, I'm just sceptical of the threat. All taken on board however, I'm no expert on international relations.

[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]

There are 9 countries with said weapons.