Reply to thread

Message

How many of those scenarios;
- Would have really been any different given likely that the US would have stepped in with equivalent guarantees instead in the more obvious examples, and;
- nuclear weapons (having them or not having them) have nothing to do with the “less obvious” example (Northern Ireland - that’s just a ridiculous suggestion. And the Argentinians did actually invade the Falklands.).

There’s not too many actual real-world instances where you can point to the UK nuclear deterrent in isolation having that much impact. That’s not intended as a general anti-nuclear point, an argument can be made that UK and French National deterrents have a wider impact re: NATO, US etc.

However it is just anti-historical to propose there was a long string of UK “national humiliations” prevented by the UK national nuclear deterrent and which would inevitably occurred in the absence or abandonment of that UK national nuclear deterrent.

<blockquote data-quote="kaiserd" data-source="post: 478545" data-attributes="member: 10308">How many of those scenarios;- Would have really been any different given likely that the US would have stepped in with equivalent guarantees instead in the more obvious examples, and;- nuclear weapons (having them or not having them) have nothing to do with the “less obvious” example (Northern Ireland -&nbsp; that’s just a ridiculous suggestion. And the Argentinians did actually invade the Falklands.).&nbsp;There’s not too many actual real-world&nbsp; instances where you can point to the UK nuclear deterrent in isolation having that much impact. That’s not intended as a general anti-nuclear point, an argument can be made that UK and French National deterrents have a wider impact re: NATO, US etc.However it is just anti-historical to propose there was a long string of UK “national humiliations” prevented by the UK national nuclear deterrent and which would inevitably occurred in the absence or abandonment of that UK national nuclear deterrent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaiserd, post: 478545, member: 10308"] How many of those scenarios; - Would have really been any different given likely that the US would have stepped in with equivalent guarantees instead in the more obvious examples, and; - nuclear weapons (having them or not having them) have nothing to do with the “less obvious” example (Northern Ireland - that’s just a ridiculous suggestion. And the Argentinians did actually invade the Falklands.). There’s not too many actual real-world instances where you can point to the UK nuclear deterrent in isolation having that much impact. That’s not intended as a general anti-nuclear point, an argument can be made that UK and French National deterrents have a wider impact re: NATO, US etc. However it is just anti-historical to propose there was a long string of UK “national humiliations” prevented by the UK national nuclear deterrent and which would inevitably occurred in the absence or abandonment of that UK national nuclear deterrent. [/QUOTE]

Verification