Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Yeah and we're one of the nuclear powers along with France. To be honest I can see an argument for abolishing Trident if the money was spent on conventional forces and the intelligence services although I am generally in favour of renewal. If we believe NATO will hold as an alliance then it would be logical that different states specialise in specific areas. We seem to be pretty good at technological development, intelligence and such. Not sure how important a decent navy is these days....
|
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.