*stone cold steve austin gif*

it's unlikely that much, if anything, will come of the NK situation, yes. certainly nothing involving nuclear. but small arms fire / skirmishes that then escalate to something more serious is entirely possible and with the build up of arms by both the south and the US i'm not sure what they would deem as an appropriate response to say, the sinking of a SK vessel in the disputed waters (like what happened in 2010).

south china sea is pretty dangerous (the 'string of pearls'), and the massive increase in defence spending not only in china but also bangladesh and indonesia etc, is pretty alarming. china are bullying the region and the balance of power that seems to be revealing itself in that area has often been compared to that of pre-1914 europe (cue lots of scaremongering academics writing about imminent war). but i don't really see how those two issues are directly related to what we're talking about. although if anything the fact that china can bully the region is probably partly due to it's nuclear capability and the persuasive power that comes from it (less about 'im gonna nuke you', more about a sheer display of military strength and capability). it's the risk you do not take. and to me that's the point of nuclear weapons and i suppose goes to the heart of deterrence theory. there's a reason india and pakistan tested in the 80's despite the entire world telling them not to. there's a reason bogeyman iran is currently destroying it's currency in effort to arm itself. and there's a reason other states like brazil, egypt, and even gulf states like saudi have hinted that they want nuclear capability. and it's the same reason that if the UK disarmed not a single other nuclear state would follow. you can say you don't like them, or that they are useless and offensive etc, but that's beside the point.

to me it is essential that the UK keep the nuclear deterrent. if the UK were to get rid of trident, france would be the only nuclear armed state in europe at a time when the US are clearly showing less and less interest in our security. europe as a whole have pretty much neglected the issue of security because they believe in the replication of their 'community of states' on a wider scale is not only possible but logical in humanity's upward trajectory to enteral bliss and harmony. in 10, 20, 30 years time when the world will most likely look entirely different to what it does now the majority of europe with be left up shit creek.

they're entirely pointless yet all the current nuclear armed states will not give them up and a significant number of developing states around the world want to develop the technology, even if that means defying international regulation and pressure.

i think you've missed the point, surely ?

So in a world where states like Iran and N Korea are developing nukes you want to dismantle ours?

You're the idiot.

How would a nuke be a more effective than an anti missile defence systems?

please explain

shooting down a nuke

ffs

yeah, sorry. that will never happen. a jet going around undetected and blowing stuff up sounds silly

His motives were to frame his ex-mistress, because he was a controlling, misogynistic psycho.

could just trap it in a tractor beam and hold it above tehran