Commie Killer wrote:
Vilham wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
HuH? You suggest nuking your own contry should your navy fail? GREAT PLAN! /sarcasm
As the last 70 years have demonstrated, nuclear weaponry does not negate the need for conventional forces. If you fail to understand this, you really need to read some history.
Indeed. That's so true. /sarcasm
That's why since the countries that own nukes have had them, none of them have been invaded.
I believe the phrase is /fail
They are called a deterrent.
They are a deterrent, but only so the other guy doesnt nuke you. It doesnt stop a convetional war from breaking out. If the Russians had come rolling through the Fulda Gap in 1988, would you have immediately wanted the release of nuclear weapons? What if the Russians werent and showed no signs of using nuclear weapons?
That's why since the countries that own nukes have had them, none of them have been invaded.
Yet again... There is absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your point because this point you claim to have has NEVER happened, there is evidence to back up mine. The cold war completely supports my point, both sides really wanted to attack the other, but the threat of nuclear was so strong neither side ever attacked each other, even when there were troops read to invade the leaders were like, "wait we can't do this its suicide" and instead went through diplomatic solutions.
And as to your first post, hence why I support naval and air forces, just how is the UK going to be invaded with the worlds 3rd strongest navy and one of the worlds most powerful air forces'. You so called army boffs seem to actually know nothing about things like logistics and deployment. You think for a second if the US and UK didn't have a land route into Iraq they would have invaded... lulz
Dilbert_X wrote:
Nuclear weapons don't seem to have worked to deter all the wars we've fought in the last sixty years, pretty sure we still need an army.
That's why since the countries that own nukes have had them, none of them have been invaded right?
