There's some good points there, but I can't say that I entirely agree with Mr Derbyshire. For me, the best arms control agreement is one that takes away nuclear weapons from all the tyrants down to the last ounce of yellowcake while leaving the civilised countries of the world (Ideally, just the United States and Great Britain, but if Israel, France and maybe India want to stay in the club, we can discuss it) with massive nuclear arsenals backed by state-of-the-art missile defences and armed to the teeth with enough conventional firepower and special forces capability and the clear message that we intend to use them that any potential enemy spends most of his time having brown-trousers moments.
I like simple equations.
3 comments:
I would think that France would have more of a say in these matters than Britain currently does; from what I've read, France has the larger of the nuclear arsenals. I don't think that it would really be up to discussion with them.
Huh. Word Verification: Guere. How appropriate.
I agree. Britain needs a much larger and more diverse nuclear arsenal. Defence on the cheap is just slow suicide.
As to the French, according to Yes, Prime Minister, they're the real reason we have a nuclear deterrent in the first place.
I do hope not. I think that France is rather... close to bombard with nuclear weapons. Granted, given the closed system that is Earth, any target is slightly too close for comfort in my view.
I don't know. If we did end up going to war with France (I don't see a reason to, aside from maybe invasion attempts or some sort of Hitler II: This Time It's French scenario), I'd hope we'd stick to conventional arms or (more likely) get the US to help.
...Hm. Again, it's that thing. It's hard to imagine going to war with France these days. It'd be like Cornwall seceding from the UK and becoming a warzone.
Post a Comment