..is to cost upward of 20Billion pounds.
If I interpret Blair's actual words we need the 'credible threat' of nuclear retaliation to deter a nuclear strike from a 'rogue nation'
Why don't we just fake a 'weapon of mass destruction'? Would this strategy be sufficient to fool these nations into not going to war? And can I have a share of the money saved, since it was my idea??
2006-12-07 15:03:38 · 5 answers · asked by troothskr 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It's meant to be irony! don't you get it?
2006-12-08 10:44:04 · update #1
Fraid not, if we had pretend WMDs the Americans would tel everybody and we'd be nuked to death. Bear in mind this is a teeny weeny little country and a couple of well placed nukes would cripple us. I think we should have 100 trident submarines and strategically position them around the coasts of asia.
2006-12-07 15:14:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No matter who the PM is, we will get new Nuke weapons. Reason, rogue states arming themselves with nukes plus Russia is on a rearming strategy including difficult to detect mobile rocket launching vehicles. They obviously know something which we don't, so let's take their lead and be ready in case of the worst outcome.
2006-12-08 03:44:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Trouble is if you pretend to have nuclear weapons, there will be a time when you will need to either prove you have them or indeed have to use them in a conflict!
Obviously if you don't have them then you are up **** Creek without a paddle, SO!!.Id rather spend 20 billion now than a few trillion in the future! when some tin pot dictator wrecks civilisation
2006-12-08 04:55:25 · answer #3 · answered by robert x 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Save the money and invest our money in our country.
2006-12-07 23:08:22 · answer #4 · answered by I'm Sparticus 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What was the question again?
2006-12-07 23:06:44 · answer #5 · answered by ヅ☆Chesca ♥♥♥♥♥ 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋