Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

Used it where, and using what delivery system?

That depends when he got the bomb.

Moscow would have got one from him, that's for sure.

Kwacky wrote:Hitler would have used it. He was a nut job.

Precisely. In recent history we have had plenty of nut jobs in power.

Stalin
Hitler
Gadaffi
Iran
Israel
Plenty of African states
Trump

Eventually one will try and defend his power with one.

Their is a big difference between tactical battle field nukes and ICBM.

Hitler may have used them if they were available (which they werent ), but the fact is he didn't, nor to my knowledge has any other dictator since, so suggesting they might is speculation.

Saying the nuclear deterrent has kept us from a global scale war for the last 75 years is fact.

There's your answer. You decide speculation or fact

Cuba took us very close and that was over nukes.

USSR took loads of countries and that's when we had nukes.

Several countries have been attacked and invaded since we had nukes.

America, Russia and China have fought proxy wars

There have been countless dictators since WWII

I would argue that pacts like NATO and being part of the EU did more to prevent a third world war

Besides, the battlefield has changed.

Kwacky wrote:Cuba took us very close and that was over nukes.

USSR took loads of countries and that's when we had nukes.

Several countries have been attacked and invaded since we had nukes.

America, Russia and China have fought proxy wars

There have been countless dictators since WWII

I would argue that pacts like NATO and being part of the EU did more to prevent a third world war

Besides, the battlefield has changed.

NATO has Nukes hence no ww3.

No one is saying they stop war. They stop all out global conflict on a world war scale is the point and reality.

As I said before, superpowers now have proxy wars because ICBM stop large scale global conflict.

Yes there has been many dictators since ww2 and none have launched a ICBM at an enemy.

No dictators have yet got control of a nuclear device. But eventually they will.

I think the number of countries who are nuclear powers is quite limited for now. But there is a damned good reason they don't want the likes of North Korea to have them.

duke63 wrote:No dictators have yet got control of a nuclear device..

Putin.?

Not sure Putin is a dictator in the strictest sense.

duke63 wrote:Not sure Putin is a dictator in the strictest sense.

Imagine what Putin would be upto if the west didn't have a nuclear deterrent.

Technology cannot be undone. Its hear so we need to defend ourselves fro aggressors by being their equal. We need a strong deterrent to stop people like Putin from going too far. The check and balance keeps him in order. We could have the largest and most hi tech conventional forces in the world. If Russia has Nukes and the west dont we are always at their mercy.

The USSR had nukes while Stalin was at the helm....'49, I'm fairly sure.
He died in '52 or '53.
I think Stalin qualifies as a dictator, yes??

Blade wrote:

duke63 wrote:Not sure Putin is a dictator in the strictest sense.

Imagine what Putin would be upto if the west didn't have a nuclear deterrent.

Interfere in foreign elections?
Fly aircraft over UK air space?
Murder people on British soil?
Invade NATO friendly countries?
Annex land belonging to another country?
Seal off a sea?
Shoot down passenger airliners?
Hack other countries computer systems?

That sort of stuff?

Kwacky wrote:

Blade wrote:

duke63 wrote:Not sure Putin is a dictator in the strictest sense.

Imagine what Putin would be upto if the west didn't have a nuclear deterrent.

Interfere in foreign elections?
Fly aircraft over UK air space?
Murder people on British soil?
Invade NATO friendly countries?
Annex land belonging to another country?
Seal off a sea?
Shoot down passenger airliners?
Hack other countries computer systems?

That sort of stuff?

No much worse on a much larger scale. That is the tit for tat sh1t he gets upto when we have a nuclear deterrent.

duke63 wrote:Not sure Putin is a dictator in the strictest sense.

Maybe not in the historical sense of the term, but perhaps in the modern sense?

Blade wrote:
No much worse on a much larger scale. That is the tit for tat sh1t he gets upto when we have a nuclear deterrent.

duke63 wrote:there is a damned good reason they don't want the likes of North Korea to have them.

Is anyone actually worried about North Korea?

Any Country with a nuclear missile has the power to destroy the world, whether anyone else has a deterrent or not.

Korea almost triggered WW3

Now the North is backed by China and the South by America. There's a lot of Islands around there which are contested.

It's a potential flash point.

duke63 wrote:Any Country with a nuclear missile has the power to destroy the world, whether anyone else has a deterrent or not.

Jack wrote:the very fact that they have been invented means we must have them as a deterrent , even if we destroyed every current nuke the plans , materials and expertise exists which means that somebody somewhere will build another one .

Kwacky wrote:Korea almost triggered WW3

Now the North is backed by China and the South by America. There's a lot of Islands around there which are contested.

It's a potential flash point.

And the nuclear deterrent will stop it spilling into all out global conflict. Its a stalemate.

Any conflict will be small scale as no side will risk their own annihilation. Pressing the launch button will instigate a retaliation strike within seconds. Launching a Nuke is suicide.