| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:00 - Jan 27 with 803 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Response to a threat. The world generally is in a bad place, particularly in the east of Europe. |  |
|  |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:23 - Jan 27 with 693 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Good old days surely?
Not many wars in Europe whilst those B-52s from Alconbury were rotating around the clock to the edge of Russian airspace with live nuclear bombs on board. |  |
| |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:30 - Jan 27 with 663 views | blueasfook |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:23 - Jan 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Good old days surely?
Not many wars in Europe whilst those B-52s from Alconbury were rotating around the clock to the edge of Russian airspace with live nuclear bombs on board. |
Agree. I think there's a strong case for arguing that nuclear weapons have probably kept the peace since the 1950s. Two World wars started in Europe in the first half of the last century. Its called a nuclear deterrent for a reason. Pacifists like CND think giving up that would somehow make us safer! |  |
| |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:38 - Jan 27 with 639 views | Guthrum |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:23 - Jan 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Good old days surely?
Not many wars in Europe whilst those B-52s from Alconbury were rotating around the clock to the edge of Russian airspace with live nuclear bombs on board. |
The difference then, as a friend of mine likes to point out, was that there existed a degree of detente alongside the mutually assured destruction. The two sides talked to each other. Brezhnev was a pragmatist. The Soviets felt there was balance, rather than Russian encirclement paranoia now.
This is more like the 1950s hair-trigger riskiness, leading up to the Cuban crisis, but with far greater and more immediate destructive power available. |  |
| |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:41 - Jan 27 with 620 views | Trequartista |
Does that make us more or less of a target in Suffolk ? i.e. would you send over a nuke to try and take out opposition nukes, or are you past caring about that by that stage and just go for London? |  |
| |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:44 - Jan 27 with 604 views | bazza |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:41 - Jan 27 by Trequartista |
Does that make us more or less of a target in Suffolk ? i.e. would you send over a nuke to try and take out opposition nukes, or are you past caring about that by that stage and just go for London? |
Would anyone notice if lakenheath or the mildenhall area got hit by a nuke? It’s like Chernobyl already out that way.. |  | | |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:50 - Jan 27 with 574 views | blueasfook |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:41 - Jan 27 by Trequartista |
Does that make us more or less of a target in Suffolk ? i.e. would you send over a nuke to try and take out opposition nukes, or are you past caring about that by that stage and just go for London? |
I think Russia have enough nukes to cover both our military sites and big cities. But first strike would generally target military bases to reduce our ability to launch a counter strike. | |
| |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:53 - Jan 27 with 557 views | bazza |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:50 - Jan 27 by blueasfook |
I think Russia have enough nukes to cover both our military sites and big cities. But first strike would generally target military bases to reduce our ability to launch a counter strike. |
They have so many, it would totally overwhelm our defence, 1 screaming rocket would be enough for the French to surrender. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 12:03 - Jan 27 with 510 views | chicoazul |
| Nuclear Weapons Returning To Suffolk on 11:38 - Jan 27 by Guthrum |
The difference then, as a friend of mine likes to point out, was that there existed a degree of detente alongside the mutually assured destruction. The two sides talked to each other. Brezhnev was a pragmatist. The Soviets felt there was balance, rather than Russian encirclement paranoia now.
This is more like the 1950s hair-trigger riskiness, leading up to the Cuban crisis, but with far greater and more immediate destructive power available. |
Do you really believe what you just posted
The Soviet Union felt there was “balance”
The Soviet Union felt that? About the west? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
