Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Arguing that spending can be diverted from the nuclear deterrent to conventional arms is to misunderstand what the deterrent is.
The deterrent is our final guarantee that no matter how outmatched our armed forces may be, no matter how great the risk of invasion, we retain the ability to inflict such damage on an aggressor as to dissuade them from attacking us.
We could not possibly spend enough money on our conventional armed forces so as to ensure they could not be outmatched on the battlefield.
|
True, and the anti-nuclear campaigners don't seem to have a clue as to how the world does work, and not how it should work in their nuclear-free utopia.