conventional seems more sensible

In terms of deterrent though, would think they are more concerned with the emerging nuclear nations, and itchy fingers on those triggers.
Would much rather see us take a step and scrap them though, if Blair wants a legacy he's got one right there.

What's the point anyway? if someone nukes us does it really matter if we can fire back?
In terms of deterrent too, surely the Yanks have enough for both of us?
Suppose there is no guarantee of that they'd back us, and if someone knew we couyldn't retailiate in kind it may make the nuclear option more inviting if we pressed their conventional forces.

I dunno, I don't like them, not entirely convinced we have reached the stage where we don't need them yet though.

Posted By: megson, Mar 13, 14:46:28