Quote:
Originally Posted by cassie
Point one: As I've indicated above, you have yet to define what is meant by "all weapons of mass destruction"
|
I expect it means nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I think that would be the normal understanding of that phrase.
Britain has in any case steered clear of using chemical weapons ever since World War 1, apart from possibly a couple of operations in Iraq (ironically) in the 1920s. From what I've read, chemical weapons aren't that good for winning wars anyway - they are more effective against civilians, as Saddam realized. Britain so far as I know has
never used biological weapons. It experimented with anthrax on a Scottish island in WW2, as everyone knows, but didn't use them. Not even Nazi Germany used them. The main reason, I suspect, is that they are so difficult to control. In other words, nobody except a terrorist would be daft enough to use them for fear of their own population being contaminated.
Cassie, are you seriously implying that we should rest the defence of our country on chemical or biological weapons? And if you aren't suggesting that, why did you bring it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassie
Point two: Your apparent inability to discern the fundamental difference in psychology between peoples in Western Society and those who have spawned suicide bombings and killings, is no reason for weakening our position, especially when the latter seem increasingly able to acquire weapons of mass destruction with which to wreak havoc.
|
Cassie, I'd love to answer that point if only I could make sense of it. Do you mean:
1) That nuclear deterrence wouldn't work when we are confronted with Middle Eastern rogue states because their psychology is too different from ours? If so, wouldn't that support my position that us having nuclear weapons is a bit of a waste of money?
2) That any would-be terrorists driving dirty bombs to Birmingham must be so twisted that I shouldn't have mentioned them in my argument - that I should stick to consideration of clean, sane, responsible governments threatening each other with nuclear arsenals? Well, I'm afraid that just isn't the world we actually live in. We have to think of all the threats, not just the ones we have past experience of dealing with.
or
3) Something else altogether? Do please explain and I'll then do my best to reply.