[QUOTE=st_nick5;48850011]Corbyn isn't the one selling weapons to terrorists, or ordering air strikes, despite parliament voting not to.[/QUOTE]
Or selling arms to a shocking number of countries on our own human rights abusers list, or selling public assets to foreign countries, or bribing china to build our nuclear power plant, or giving arms and money to Saudi Arabia, or administering shockingly huge cuts to our armed forces putting soldiers out of work (and Corbyn's the pacifist) the list goes on
he's a bad pm
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;48851332]The point of owning nuclear weapons is one of not having to start a nuclear war Sobotnik. By virtue of owning them we aim to never have to find ourselves in such a position to consider a second-strike because any hypothetical nuclear threat would never fire on us in the first place due to our [i]capability[/i] to retaliate absolutely.[/QUOTE]
Except that doesn't resolve the issue of annihilation. If you have nuclear bombs and a war begins, your country is still destroyed.
There's also mentioning that the staff typically in charge of nuclear bombs tend to be the dregs of the barrel in their respective armies, often incompetent and demoralized. Since these bombs aren't expected to be launched, many of them aren't even fit for use.
Also when would nuclear bombs be launched? What if the enemy utilize salami tactics?
[quote]"But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy.”
“No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York."[/quote]
hahahahahaha
fuck off you vitriolic cunt
He said, on the topic of extra-judicial killing, as someone who opposes the death penalty and supports the idea of actually putting people on trial before you prosecute them, that this is another tragedy in a long line of tragedies. Here's the full quote:
[quote]‘There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.
This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.
The World Trade Centre was a tradegy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.
Can’t we learn some lessons over this?’[/quote]
Pretty spot on from what I can see.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48851466]Except that doesn't resolve the issue of annihilation. If you have nuclear bombs and a war begins, your country is still destroyed.[/QUOTE]
If you have nuclear weapons, your country is a lot less likely to be destroyed because of the fear in the prospective attacker's mind as to the consequences of actually launching a strike. You're entirely missing the point in that the purpose of a nuclear deterrent isn't to exact as much vengeance on the attacker as possible post-launch. It's to put so little doubt in a potential attacker's mind as to the ability of the target nation to retaliate with such dire consequences for the attacker that no launch is even made in the first place. To [i]deter[/i].
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;48851652]If you have nuclear weapons, your country is a lot less likely to be destroyed because of the fear in the prospective attacker's mind as to the consequences of actually launching a strike. You're entirely missing the point in that the purpose of a nuclear deterrent isn't to exact as much vengeance on the attacker as possible post-launch. It's to put so little doubt in a potential attacker's mind as to the ability of the target nation to retaliate with such dire consequences for the attacker that no launch is even made in the first place. To [i]deter[/i].[/QUOTE]
Except by owning nuclear weapons you are already made a priority target in case of nuclear war, because the enemy will be treating nuclear-armed nations as the most threatening.
Also a lot of treaties have been adopted which have stopped the nuclear arms race, while both the USA and Russia are actively shrinking their arsenals. Nukes are the dreadnoughts of the modern age - costly and useless.
I'm for trident but I'm completely against the absurd amount of money we're planning to waste on getting 4 new Subs we'll never need
As it is we always have an active trident submarine that I'm pretty sure has enough nuclear warheads with MIRV functionality that it could destroy most, if not all of the major cities of any single country on the planet.
Lets put it out there that in 2030, or 2040 or beyond, some rogue state gets nuclear weapons that can actually target the UK. Even then, every state in NATO is protected because of article 5, meaning there'd be guaranteed nuclear retaliation, but lets say NATO collapses or whatever. They're not even going to dare attack us while we have even one active nuclear submarine hidden underneath the ice on the northern hemisphere of planet. It would be suicide. As a general rule in these sorts of fantasies, the world would be completely fucked anyway.
You can't flex your muscules with Trident, as even suggesting you're going to nuke someone without exceptional, world ending circumstances would be political suicide. All it really does is justify our seat at the UN Security Council. Is that really worth about a hundred billion quid?
Trident is pointless, if you're going to spend that much money on the military, spend it on useful military assets instead of this crap
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48851116]Nuclear bombs are a long term waste of money too. It's much more productive to pursue diplomacy. Also there's mentioning that we aren't going to go to war with Russia, North Korea, or Iran anytime soon.
Starting a nuclear war means destroying civilization and killing billions of people, so why bother holding such weapons if you can't use them?[/QUOTE]
Mutually assured destruction is a part of diplomacy. Matriax is right, this is about stopping a huge war like WW2 from occurring again. The superpowers of the world can't directly fight each other when both sides know whoever loses is going to wipe the other side out anyway.
Just because we have nukes doesn't means we are going to start blowing the world up, it just keeps people talking. Nuclear weapons are both the ultimate weapon and ultimate peace keeping device. The cost of the Trident program is low compared to what would happen if a large war happened again. If you ever want out of the EU or NATO you are going to need them to keep a place at the negotiating table.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;48850274]We don't need to be a nuclear state at all. Most of Europe don't have their own nukes, why do we need them?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=amorax;48850430]Most of Europe doesn't need nukes or much of a conventional army because there is a heavy American presence there, for better or worse. Lessening our dependence on them can only be a good thing.[/QUOTE]You'll need them when we decide to stop covering your asses, most of your nuclear deterrent comes from Minuteman IIIs in South Dakota. Your nuclear deterrent policy is an apparatus of ours, and on that note you cannot keep expecting us to subsidize European defense when as a people we're getting more and more isolationist every year. Americans already think Europeans do absolutely nothing as a whole anyway, and we're starting to severely question the size and cost of our own government. I'm pretty sure every US poster here knows at least one person who's wondering why we have expensive military bases in Europe. Not many people have forgotten about the base closures during the Clinton era, and questioning why we needed to close US bases but keep all those foreign bases when we had just "beaten" the Soviets.
That sentiment hasn't died, it's just taken a new form.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48851723]Except by owning nuclear weapons you are already made a priority target in case of nuclear war, because the enemy will be treating nuclear-armed nations as the most threatening.[/QUOTE]"When war begins everyone picks fights with everyone else for absolutely no reason at all, also anyone who appears even slightly threatening is automatically a target because... reasons..."
[QUOTE=Morgen;48852746]Mutually assured destruction is a part of diplomacy. Matriax is right, this is about stopping a huge war like WW2 from occurring again. The superpowers of the world can't directly fight each other when both sides know whoever loses is going to wipe the other side out anyway.
Just because we have nukes doesn't means we are going to start blowing the world up, it just keeps people talking. Nuclear weapons are both the ultimate weapon and ultimate peace keeping device. The cost of the Trident program is low compared to what would happen if a large war happened again. If you ever want out of the EU or NATO you are going to need them to keep a place at the negotiating table.[/QUOTE]
Nukes don't keep peace, diplomatic treaties do that. India and Pakistan have engaged in skirmishes and minor wars for decades despite both of them being armed with nukes.
If we had nukes in WW2, when would have they been used? When Japan annexed Manchuria? When Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia, or when he invaded Poland? When Russia invaded Finland and the Baltic states?
I say get rid of them entirely, and encourage nations around the world to continue dismantling their stockpiles. Only a handful of nations keep nuclear bombs these days, and few of them are even actually usable.
Most of the assumption of the politicians and people in the armed forces (especially since the cold war ended) is that nuclear bombs are never going to be used. No new ones are being made, and the ones we still do have are obsolete and badly maintained.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48852843]"When war begins everyone picks fights with everyone else for absolutely no reason at all, also anyone who appears even slightly threatening is automatically a target because... reasons..."[/QUOTE]
If Russia was going to invade Britain and we had no nukes, they wouldn't nuke us - they would go for a conventional war first. Why? Because if they nuked us they would have basically caused such massive damage that they couldn't occupy the country - not to mention that civilization would start collapsing as the knock-on effects on the environment and global economy would spiral out of control.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48852862]Nukes don't keep peace, diplomatic treaties do that. India and Pakistan have engaged in skirmishes and minor wars for decades despite both of them being armed with nukes.
If we had nukes in WW2, when would have they been used? When Japan annexed Manchuria? When Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia, or when he invaded Poland? When Russia invaded Finland and the Baltic states?
I say get rid of them entirely, and encourage nations around the world to continue dismantling their stockpiles. Only a handful of nations keep nuclear bombs these days, and few of them are even actually usable.
Most of the assumption of the politicians and people in the armed forces (especially since the cold war ended) is that nuclear bombs are never going to be used. No new ones are being made, and the ones we still do have are obsolete and badly maintained.
If Russia was going to invade Britain and we had no nukes, they wouldn't nuke us - they would go for a conventional war first. Why? Because if they nuked us they would have basically caused such massive damage that they couldn't occupy the country - not to mention that civilization would start collapsing as the knock-on effects on the environment and global economy would spiral out of control.[/QUOTE]
You are missing the point. If Europe had nukes (or strong and proven allies with them) then the Nazi's wouldn't of done what did in the first place so those situations wouldn't even come up.
Do you think WW2 could happen now if the EU existed and several prominent members had nuclear weapons back then? Nuclear weapons help keep people at the table to form treaties.
Pakistan and India haven't had any big wars since both sides have had nuclear weapons. You would only seriously consider using them if you're mainland was at threat of being defeated.
[QUOTE=Morgen;48853020]You are missing the point. If Europe had nukes (or strong and proven allies with them) then the Nazi's wouldn't of done what did in the first place so those situations wouldn't even come up.[/quote]
Lets say that Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. Would have France and Britain threatened Germany with nuclear bombs if they had done that?
[quote]Do you think WW2 could happen now if the EU existed[/quote]
no
[quote]and several prominent members had nuclear weapons back then?[/quote]
yes
[quote]Pakistan and India haven't had any big wars since both sides have had nuclear weapons. You would only seriously consider using them if you're mainland was at threat of being defeated.[/QUOTE]
They had a relatively big conflict in 1999 known as the Kargil War.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor[/url]
It wasn't the fact that they had nukes which brought about peace.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48850261]Well trident is a bit overblown, its a counter value weapon, its not going to be targeting military instillations, its targeted at cities, most slbms are because the sub is supposed to be able to ride out the first exchange and fire away in retaliation.
With Russia rebuilding its icbm supply its not a bad idea for everyone else to modernize and make sure their icbms are ready, even if we don't intend to use them[/QUOTE]
SLBMs have the accuracy for counter-force use and have had for three decades.
[editline]8th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48853102]Lets say that Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. Would have France and Britain threatened Germany with nuclear bombs if they had done that?
no
yes
They had a relatively big conflict in 1999 known as the Kargil War.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor[/url]
It wasn't the fact that they had nukes which brought about peace.[/QUOTE]
You have one example of two backwards third-world nations versus the Soviets not crossing the Fulda Gap despite a half-century of dickwaving.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48853102]Lets say that Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. Would have France and Britain threatened Germany with nuclear bombs if they had done that?
no
yes
They had a relatively big conflict in 1999 known as the Kargil War.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor[/url]
It wasn't the fact that they had nukes which brought about peace.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to threaten someone with nuclear weapons for them to be effective. You just have to of proven that you have them and have an effective delivery method available.
The 1999 war was relatively minor compared to their past ones and was fairly isolated.
[QUOTE]Sensing a deteriorating military scenario, diplomatic isolation, and the risks of a larger conventional and nuclear war, Sharif ordered the Pakistani army to vacate the Kargil heights.[/QUOTE]
So clearly nuclear weapons was a factor here, if they didn't have them then fighting by conventional means probably would of been allowed to go further and that could of potentially escalated to a larger conflict.
Oh and look at the cold war. If the Soviets or Americans didn't have nuclear weapons it almost certainly would of come to a conventional war, which probably would of spiraled into WW3.
I think the UK needs a nuclear deterrent but I'm concerned that Trident will gut the rest of the armed forces to do so. The warheads themselves aren't the expensive part, it's the delivery systems that make up 95% of the 30 billion pounds price tag.
The UK might be better off with a diversified cruise missile and standoff missile based deterrence using a common warhead. A nuclear cruise missile for surface ships, for the Astute Class, for the new F35s and maybe one for a ground-launched cruise missile system like the old Gryphon all use the same warhead design that can be moved about to different parts of the system if need be. Throw in a supersonic short ranged standoff weapon as well fr good measure.
[QUOTE=download;48853318]SLBMs have the accuracy for counter-force use and have had for three decades.
[/QUOTE]
its not the point though, subs are only used either as a first strike or a counter-value second strike, the whole deterant of a SLBM is that you cannot knock it out with a first strike, where as silo based nukes are counter-force options that are supposed to launch the instant a launch is confirmed, SLBMs are supposed to stay underwater until everything has been exchanged, then pop up and continue firing. unless the doctrines of nuclear war have changed radically in the last 20 years, SLBMs aren't supposed to be counter-force, thats a waste of a bomb-proof weapon
[editline]7th October 2015[/editline]
i'm supprised the missiles themselves cost so much, because the Polaris which trident is replacing, is basically a sub launched minuteman, and as such is just a large "dumb" solid rocket with a smart re-entry vehicle ontop, unless they are dramatically re-engineering everything, it should not cost that much to produce one, thats the entire point of the minuteman and its spin offs, is that you can churn them out for 150M a pop
[QUOTE=Morgen;48853364]You don't have to threaten someone with nuclear weapons for them to be effective. You just have to of proven that you have them and have an effective delivery method available. The 1999 war was relatively minor compared to their past ones and was fairly isolated.[/quote]
But the fact that they both had nukes didn't contribute to peace - military spending went up after the war and the dispute still isn't resolved. Nuclear bombs haven't done anything to contribute towards fixing that problem.
[quote]So clearly nuclear weapons was a factor here, if they didn't have them then fighting by conventional means probably would of been allowed to go further and that could of potentially escalated to a larger conflict.[/quote]
It seems much more like the diplomatic isolation and
[quote]Oh and look at the cold war. If the Soviets or Americans didn't have nuclear weapons it almost certainly would of come to a conventional war, which probably would of spiraled into WW3.[/QUOTE]
Why? For what reasons? The Soviet Unions great leader died in 1953, and for the next thirty-five years it struggled to keep a hold over eastern Europe, so it's doubtful it would have wanted to get into a costly war just to gain Austria or West Germany. The West was also unwilling to invade in the aftermath of WW2, while the USSR lurched from crisis to crisis.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48853437]its not the point though, subs are only used either as a first strike or a counter-value second strike, the whole deterant of a SLBM is that you cannot knock it out with a first strike, where as silo based nukes are counter-force options that are supposed to launch the instant a launch is confirmed, SLBMs are supposed to stay underwater until everything has been exchanged, then pop up and continue firing. unless the doctrines of nuclear war have changed radically in the last 20 years, SLBMs aren't supposed to be counter-force, thats a waste of a bomb-proof weapon[/QUOTE]
It's enough to act as a good deterrent though. Even if you take out the UK mainland and our one (not yet in service) carrier then you know the UK will still fire back at you.
I wouldn't be opposed to using cruise missile base nuclear weapons instead of subs but I think we would need far more carriers (and the supporting fleets to go with them) for it to be as effective.
the trident itself only costs 70M, idk why it would cost them 70B other than building subs for it
[QUOTE=Sableye;48853437]its not the point though, subs are only used either as a first strike or a counter-value second strike, the whole deterant of a SLBM is that you cannot knock it out with a first strike, where as silo based nukes are counter-force options that are supposed to launch the instant a launch is confirmed, SLBMs are supposed to stay underwater until everything has been exchanged, then pop up and continue firing. unless the doctrines of nuclear war have changed radically in the last 20 years, SLBMs aren't supposed to be counter-force, thats a waste of a bomb-proof weapon
i'm supprised the missiles themselves cost so much, because the Polaris which trident is replacing, is basically a sub launched minuteman, and as such is just a large "dumb" solid rocket with a smart re-entry vehicle ontop, unless they are dramatically re-engineering everything, it should not cost that much to produce one, thats the entire point of the minuteman and its spin offs, is that you can churn them out for 150M a pop[/QUOTE]
No they're not. Where did you get that idea? Why would they wait? By waiting you open yourself up to be neutralised by enemy submarines. SLBM have the accuracy to destroy silos and are part of a counter-force strategy. The US for example simply doesn't have enough warheads on its ICBM force to do so themselves.
Polaris and Minuteman are completely different systems as well. The only thing between them the same is the rocket fill.
There's also worth mentioning that our nuclear programme is hopelessly useless and unfit for purpose:
[url]http://www.nuclearinfo.org/sites/default/files/William%20McNeilly%20Secret%20Nuclear%20Threat%20120515.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=download;48853508]No they're not. Where did you get that idea? Why would they wait? By waiting you open yourself up to be neutralised by enemy submarines. SLBM have the accuracy to destroy silos and are part of a counter-force strategy. The US for example simply doesn't have enough warheads on its ICBM force to do so themselves.[/QUOTE]
like i said, 2 jobs, first-strike or second counter-value strike, an ohio class sub carried individually enough ordinance to destroy much of the soviet union's cities, so the deterance is that you have to hunt down each one without alerting the navy, and do so before they are given the orders to launch or authorized to launch. their use as a first strike weapon goes against US policy which is, we don't use nukes as a first strike weapon regardless
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48853516]There's also worth mentioning that our nuclear programme is hopelessly useless and unfit for purpose:
[url]http://www.nuclearinfo.org/sites/default/files/William%20McNeilly%20Secret%20Nuclear%20Threat%20120515.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
No one took that guy seriously.
polaris, trident, and minuteman are all part of the same line of research, a cheap solid propelled launch vehicle
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48853482]But the fact that they both had nukes didn't contribute to peace - military spending went up after the war and the dispute still isn't resolved. Nuclear bombs haven't done anything to contribute towards fixing that problem.
It seems much more like the diplomatic isolation and
Why? For what reasons? The Soviet Unions great leader died in 1953, and for the next thirty-five years it struggled to keep a hold over eastern Europe, so it's doubtful it would have wanted to get into a costly war just to gain Austria or West Germany. The West was also unwilling to invade in the aftermath of WW2, while the USSR lurched from crisis to crisis.[/QUOTE]
The dispute might not be resolved but nuclear weapons have stopped them from shooting at each other. Shooting at each other is a great way to have things escalate.
I'm not sure if you have ever bothered to read about the cold war at all or..? Immediately after WW2 Europe was tired of fighting, and the soviets wasn't an immediate threat so no one wanted to fight. The public in most of the western countries wouldn't of supported an invasion of the Soviet union immediately after dealing with the Nazis and Japan.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48853535]like i said, 2 jobs, first-strike or second counter-value strike, an ohio class sub carried individually enough ordinance to destroy much of the soviet union's cities, so the deterance is that you have to hunt down each one without alerting the navy, and do so before they are given the orders to launch or authorized to launch. their use as a first strike weapon goes against US policy which is, we don't use nukes as a first strike weapon regardless[/QUOTE]
No? The US doesn't have a no first use policy.
And if a single sub has the power to perform a counter-value mission by itself why not assign the rest of them to counter-force? Every weapon destroyed on the ground is one less weapon that hits your nation.
On top of that, collateral from command and control targeting would cause the necessary horrific civilian casualties.
[editline]8th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;48853544]polaris, trident, and minuteman are all part of the same line of research, a cheap solid propelled launch vehicle[/QUOTE]
Cheap compared to liquid fuels yes, but they're still in the range of $50m to $100m a pop.
[QUOTE=download;48853537]No one took that guy seriously.[/QUOTE]
There's a general corroboration of his claims. A large number of problems have been noted: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/18/trident-whistleblower-needs-to-be-listened-to-nuclear-submarine[/url]
[quote]That same year, the MoD’s top nuclear safety expert warned of a risk of multiple fatalities from nuclear-powered submarines, including the Trident fleet, failing to surface. Two years later the Trident submarine HMS Vengeance cut short a training exercise in the north Atlantic when its propeller became locked by debris. Up to 451 safety incidents occurred between 2008-09 and 2013-14, including 71 fires and major equipment failures at the Trident base at Faslane, according to figures released to the SNP MP Angus Robertson.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Morgen;48853557]The dispute might not be resolved but nuclear weapons have stopped them from shooting at each other. Shooting at each other is a great way to have things escalate.
I'm not sure if you have ever bothered to read about the cold war at all or..? Immediately after WW2 Europe was tired of fighting, and the soviets wasn't an immediate threat so no one wanted to fight. The public in most of the western countries wouldn't of supported an invasion of the Soviet union immediately after dealing with the Nazis and Japan.[/QUOTE]
I have read about the cold war. If neither sides had nuclear weapons I still find it difficult to see why they would support another war. After Stalin died I can't have seen any of the Soviet leaders deciding to invade west Germany. After Vietnam I couldn't have seen anybody in the west supporting such a war, while throughout the 60s and onwards the USSR struggled to keep their mismanaged empire together.
Also for much of the early part of the cold war there was a popular view that a nuclear war was a survivable thing, an illusion which was stupid and dangerous. Once movies like Threads and The Day After came out, a lot of people began to realize what sort of risks a nuclear war could actually bring.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48853618]There's a general corroboration of his claims. A large number of problems have been noted: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/18/trident-whistleblower-needs-to-be-listened-to-nuclear-submarine[/url][/QUOTE]
ya but thats organizational problems and hardware related problems, the missiles themselves work just fine because we sold them to you working, theres a reason why US SAC was considered one of the most disciplined forces, and their heads known for being hardasses, you can't dick around with nuclear weapons
[QUOTE=Sableye;48853660]ya but thats organizational problems and hardware related problems, the missiles themselves work just fine because we sold them to you working, theres a reason why US SAC was considered one of the most disciplined forces, and their heads known for being hardasses, you can't dick around with nuclear weapons[/QUOTE]
The American nuclear forces have had their fair share of incompetence too: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash[/url]
Also these days the nuclear forces in the USA are being slowly stripped down and the remaining bombs are obsolete and manned by bored or inept staff who are put in charge of what's considered a dead-end job. The costs of maintaining them has been steadily growing over time, due to a lack of standardization and inept handling. It costs more to maintain the small number of bombs the US has today than it did for them to manufacture thousands of them in the 1960s.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48853618]
Also for much of the early part of the cold war there was a popular view that a nuclear war was a survivable thing, an illusion which was stupid and dangerous. Once movies like Threads and The Day After came out, a lot of people began to realize what sort of risks a nuclear war could actually bring.[/QUOTE]
it came down to an inevitable buildup because the soviets after ww2 didn't disarm like everybody else did, they maintained a very large military, and europe had no deterant, even as they recovered, they refused to build a massive army to counter the soviet one, and the US couldn't support an army that could counter the soviets in europe, and asia, so we did the "cheaper" route and built nuclear weapons, because why build and maintain hundreds of tanks when you can have the same size of destruction from one missile or bomb, and then things got silly.... tactical nuclear weapons, anti-air nuclear weapons, anti-tank nuclear weapons, anti-ship nuclear weapons, the US military industrial complex (here's where eisenhower comes in) kept selling the military on why they needed a nuclear X, even if everybody else was screaming against it. now in the 50s and 60s the west had a gargantuan nuclear advantage, but by the 70s the soviet union had built up a considerable amount of ICBMs that the whole thing became moot, this is when we started seriously building up the massive military the US has today, things like the f-14,15,16 the a-10, guided missiles, and the tons of tanks and troops we have stationed in europe came from the loss of deterance in the 70s
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.