How the comedy show "Yes, Prime Minister" hilariously explained Jeremy Corbyn's position on Trident back in the days. looool #JeremyCorbyn If you want to laugh a bit more, read this article on the Independent www.independent...
It's more resembling the situation with Taiwan. China won't invade the main island, but apply the salami tactic to take one small island unter Taipei's control near the mainland after another.
You're missing the fact that even the adviser in the clip, who knows nuclear weapons are useless, understands that all sides need to have them and recommends keeping the system they already have. This is because even though "salami tactics" defeats the nuclear option not having them opens up myriad other losing scenarios.
Connor Mcewen, do you have some basic reading comprehension? Haradion said YOU need nukes, because if YOU have nukes the other side won't use THEIR nukes to nuke YOU because YOU would then launch YOUR nukes at THEM.
+S1lm4r1l But it does move it away from another important geostrategic location, that being Sevastopol. Russia's navy would be severely weakened if it lost that, and if the anti-Russian Ukrainian government is prepared to illegally overthrow their predecessors, what's to say that they'd honour the Ukrainian agreement to lease Sevastopol to the Russians? Nothing. In 2004, a whole series of former Soviet bloc nations joined the EU but more importantly NATO has been expanding westward despite agreeing not to following the collapse of the USSR. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all former bricks in the soviet buffer zone that without war have been integrated into Russia's greatest enemy, NATO. It's no wonder their trigger finger is twitching-we said that we wouldn't smash their sphere of influence and in their moment of weakness that's exactly what we did.
Perhaps Russia should stop for a second and consider _why_ so many of their former sattelite states are so happy to become part of EU and NATO in the first place.
The clip in no way shows the uselessness of the nukes but the necessity of conventional forces, fleets and an air force. Nuke is necessary as if one side has it and the other does not, nuclear strike becomes an option. Yet nukes alone do not solve the problem, as described in this clip, since when both sides have nuclear weapons the conventional forces become what matters. It is really idiotic to conclude the nukes are useless from this clip, as it is not what they argued at all. Try facing an enemy with nuke while having no nuclear force yourself, the Japanese would be very happy to tell you what would happen.
While your point is well made, I'd like to point out that at the time, the Americans didn't actually have enough Nukes to defeat Japan if they didn't surrender - they were basically prototype weapons, and they only had a few. Japan could easily have held out for a long time and fought a ground war if needed (though another couple of cities would have been destroyed).
@@GoldenSunAlex This is an argument that is as old as the war itself. I absolutely agree that these weapons were but experimental, but that in no way means they could not end the war. These 'another couple of cities' could well be Tokyo, Kyoto, Yokohama, Kure...near the sources of water and food storage, major population centres and imperial palace, schools and hospitals, followed chemical weapons not just from strategic bombers but smaller ones, as well as more systematic naval bombardments, as we know such plans and experiments existed. I would not fancy the madness to 'hold for a long time' in this situation. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were restrained choices to begin with. When a countdown of distruction hanging like a Democles Sword over the entire country, do you really think the militarism-infested generals and admirals could still have the people die for them? And as much as I want to agree with you and believe in no condition would the allies commit to such crimes and in no way would the Daihonei be this mad, I am afraid that I have no faith in the limits of human cruelty.
@@yidingliu8663 The alternative was an amphibious landing and conventional invasion - the preparations for which involved making so many Purple Hearts that we're _still giving them out_ - against not only the regular Japanese army (which as a side note was headquartered at Hiroshima, and was the primary target of the first bomb), but irregular forces consisting of the _entire population of Japan,_ who at the time of the bombings were being mobilized and trained to resist American troops with bamboo spears. For those who were not fit enough to die charging machine guns with pointy sticks, there were plans for children and the elderly to be given satchel charges and then throw themselves under American tanks. Given the horrific gorefest that the alternative would have entailed, I don't think the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and, in the alternate timeline where Japan didn't surrender, the subsequent reduction of Tokyo, Kyoto, Kure, etc., until the entire Japanese archipelago no longer existed above sea level - can be called a crime. It was, if any moral judgement can be made about it, a mercy.
The hilarious part about that is it's even more true later in the episode when Sir Humphry tells an Army General, who was at first happy about the idea beause he only knew he was getting 15 billion more pounds, that the plan includes mass conscription and the General is horrified. He says something along the lines of "We have an elite army, we need the best of the best in it. You do that and we'll be flooded with bums, criminals, and drug addicts." Funny thing is here in the US when the asked the pentagon what they thought of bringing back the draft (for the exact same reasons Hacker gives, i.e. less youth unemployment) they said something like "no, thanks. We have be very selective with who we pick for most jobs and we no longer have need for mass manpower for low-skill, menial labor like we did back in 60s"
Although I understand why Nuclear weapons are futile, that is the point, they are supposed to be. Lets look at history prior to the development of atom bombs, every few decades or so we had major global conflicts, be it internal or external conflicts such as Napoleonic Wars, Russo-Persian War, Rum Rebellion , Spanish American wars of independence , Mexican War of Independence, War of 1812 , Creek War ,Seminole Wars ,Zulu Wars of Conquest ,Greek War of Independence ,Java War ,Winnebago War ,Black Hawk War ,Texas Revolution ,First Opium War ,Navajo Wars ,Mexican-American War ,Apache Wars ,California Indian Wars ,Crimean War ,American Civil War , Snake War, Red Cloud's War ,Comanche Campaign Great Sioux War (Black Hills War) ,Nez Perce War ,Cheyenne War ,Sheepeater Indian War ,Victorio's War ,Boxer Rebellion Second Boer War, World War I and World War 2 (Europe at least). With virtually no way of stopping enemies, these wars continued throughout human history, until the development of nuclear bombs, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the potential for a war between the United States and the USSR was obliterated, a half a century cold war followed, but with no shots being fired. Nuclear weapons are never supposed to be used, that is the point, it is a psychological deterrent, if you could destroy a country along with its people, culture and history with the press of a button, most countries will back off. Im not saying that there are now ars, there are plenty of wars today, but no wars between 1st world nations, and that is what is important. The purpose of Nuclear weapons is to NEVER be used, that is the point, so when people argue that they will never be used, they are right, they never will, as countries know the consequences if they were to invade. The main reason we have peace in our century is because Nuclear weapons act as a enforced peace, as countries do not want to risk the annihilation of all life on earth.
AngerySpheesMarheen So after the second world war, the US and USSR were already pretty evenly matched and had no real reason to go to war. If you really believe that war was inevitable without nukes, then why didn't the Americans attack before the Russians got nukes? the cold war was largely perpetuated by nuclear weapons. if they hadn't existed, we might have had peace a lot sooner, instead of 60 years of playing chicken.
If they hadn't of existed, it would have been a hot war instead of a cold war. Of course the US and the USSR had real reasons to go to war, the USSR could have occupied most of Europe and America wanted to increase it's economic power, with both sides pledged to defend numerous allies which could provide real reasons for war. The question of why the Americans didn't attack before Russia got nukes is interesting, there was a lot of debate after the war about how exactly to use them, and there were at least 4 instances when America threatened to use them in order to force the Russians to back down. The main reason was that America decided that the best use of nuclear weapons was as the ultimate hand in poker, so they could always threaten to use them and the Russians couldn't afford to call that bluff. Another thing you have to remember is the gap between the Americans and Russians having the bomb was about 4 years, which isn't very long in practical terms. The military head of the Manhattan Project thought it would be at least 20 years before the Russians had the bomb, so it could be that the Americans thought they had that long to maintain their dominance before using the nukes would be necessary. No point nuking Russia year 1 when you can threaten to use them for 20 years and get 20 years of bargaining power out of them.
Your statement that peace among first world nations is all that matters is baffling to say the least. In any case first world nations have been involved in numerous conflicts since 1945, including many proxy wars and wars that are still ongoing. There's no indication that the number of conflicts has declined, including in the sense of "first world" involvement. You are right to say that there have been no wars between first world nations since 1945 (a concept which only existed post-WWII, so is irrelevant to any period before the advent of nuclear weapons), but it's unclear that nuclear deterrence has had anything to do with that; there has been no great incentive for war between western European countries or the US.
To be fair, those wars you listed weren't all global at the same scale as WWI/WWII. And we still have multiple conventional wars today: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93present
unstaible child Perfectly exemplifies what a rabidly resilient populace aided by natural geographic (terrain) advantages can achieve. The only way to "control" that region is to turn it into radioactive glass, but that would be a hollow victory.
S1lm4r1l Ask the Brits they loved India so much they weren't ready to leave for a very long time .They would have kept it still had WW2 not completely bankrupt the nation .
I'd like to argue that the gentleman argues the nuclear response is a tabled option rather than a weapon of intimidation. Whether you agree or disagree to their existence, no one wants to start a conflict with another nuclear power on the notion of horror of a response. To ALSO be fair to the gentleman, he is living in the tail end of the Cold War, and the Doomsday Clock was still a social specter. He responds through a mix of fear and opinion, which is both a good and a bad thing. Good because he is knowledgeable enough to apply that opinion, a bad thing because the fear dictates the manner of approach he wishes Hacker to take.
That doesn't even apply to what I said at all. My argument was a response vs response as a political option versus the trigger for escalation. What you're talking about is "OH ARGENTINA WENT INTO THE FALKLANDS ANYWAY". That's like arguing the deterrent is applicable to the Korean War or the Vietnam War ... or Bosnia. Proxy response does not facilitate political decisions to a counter. Yeesh. Any first year knows that.
It is, but I suppose in that scenario its less about physical defense than it is psychological defense - if they know they can get nuked in retaliation, they likely wont nuke you (unless they for some reason decide they have nothing to lose)
Biggest slice is not just a slice, but a whole sausage. How many agents would former KGB/FSB chief Putin have on his payroll in government buildings in Ankara ? Just imagine Erdogan being chatted up by a Russian paid expert on the subject of Europe's unreliability and lack of enthusiasm and actual support for a Turkish EU membership. That so-called army coup of 2016 might even have had some Russian inspiration. ... and by the way, how would 'salami' translate into (North) Korean?
Just a funny question, we have a squadron of 4 nuclear subs, only one at sea at any one time, do we have the crews to put the other 3 to sea immediately. Just how many sea hours have the current fleet have. Common sense, If and when would we use it. do we have enough missiles to arm all the Subs and will the US allow us to use them.
Given the time it takes to service a trident submarine only one is available at any given time. It may be possible to get a second ready in an emergency but not three. It takes longer to service the submarine than the missile and even then there aren't enough missiles for 3 subs at the same time. There is also not enough trained crew for 3 subs, it would be hard to find enough for 2 to be at sea at the same time.
In an emergency, we would likely be stuck with just the one, but as global tensions rise the government would start to arm the nuclear subs. Nuclear war doesn't just start in a heartbeat; it really is the last resort, and we'd likely have months to prepare.
I can see none of you know anything about the Vanguard class submarines. At least one is kept at sea at all times, but at least 3 are always capable of being deployed, that was the idea behind the deterrent anyway.
Wont happen for the time being but we can't say that going forward, the more advanced we become, the more nations will get nukes or other weapons like them and the more that have them, the more things that can go wrong, the real question is, what is the solution?, it's clear nukes can't go in the box and more nations will build them with time.
It's not really talk, it's reality, it's only a matter of time before more nations build nukes, more so with how the US is acting of late and the more advanced we become, the more damage we can do to ourselfs, the real danger to the human race is how devided we are and that could be our downfall.
Late, but not really, the Austrians point was both sides need the bomb, but there's no need for Britain to have it when the Americans do, but keep Polaris (our old Nuclear system) just in case. As another commented said, we've already seen what happens in a war when one side had nukes and the other didn't.
@@craigeast3682 Conscription is an issue of national needs, not so much just individual liberty, especially when your country has no real ability to launch a aggressive military operation. It would be stupid if you refuse to defend the platform that grants you all your social welfare, freedom of speech and healthcare system, and for that, sometimes you just have to have conscription.
Late to the party but I'll give my thoughts. I agree with it in certain circumstances but not as a permanent policy. Generally speaking volunteer professional fighting forces will almost always trump a conscript force due to better training and actually being willing participants. In the case of total all out war with the nations freedom at stake then conscription must always be an option if needed. A good example would be the Falklands conflict. Highly trained and motivated British army troops against ill trained and ill motivated Argentine conscripts was an important factor in Argentinas defeat.
Actually it points to how useless/useful nukes are in actual terms... The joke is that Jim thinks it is his own idea, but the actual point is presented... Why spend billions on a weapon system, if you have no intention if using it... Especially if the current weapon is already doing what the new weapon is suppose to do.
nukes are needed because after years of an all-out conventional war, precious notions of restraint evaporate, barbarism rises ..... and the side with the nukes wins. Ask the Japanese.
@Thou Art That then nukes aren't a deterrent they are an offensive weapon. Nukes are no good at deterring anyone but as an offensive weapon they are powerful bomb.
I like how ignorant people are saying Chicom's are using Salami tactics. That's pure ignorance. Chicom's territorial claims are the same as Taiwan's, less Mongolia. Their view is that Chinese republics inherit all territories of Imperial China. This is important in the minds of many Chinese, because they feel aggrieved by the century of shame where the once great Chinese empire were beaten repeatedly by Western powers. It's not like their claims have no merit at all.
What does this have to do with anti-semitism? The joke at the start was about humphrey not liking foreigners i.e. austrians. It may surprise you to hear that Austria is a nation, not a branch of judaism
Pamastymui a show about government, red tape, civil servants, democracy, the EU, foreign relations, and nuclear weapons isn't about politics? that's a surprise.
Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister were serious documentaries. No seriously, a lot of it was real stuff from ex- and current civil service members with one-liners thrown in.
It was written by ex-government insiders to give a humorous voice to those who could spot the obvious but didn’t know the details needed to describe it in specific terms. At the very least, it’s better than those insufferable wankers who treat American late-night hosts as gospel.
