|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 6:14:00 GMT
Much has been made of Jeremy Corbyn's CND credentials, and how his wish to unilaterally disarm our independent nuclear deterrent. For all of my adult life, not only have I been told that the only way to disarm, is multilaterally, but up until this week, I believed it too. Conventional wisdom has us believe that the point about nuclear disarmament is that you have to do it multilaterally not unilaterally.
We don't need any history lessons as to why we have the deterrent, but since the end of the Cold War, they have lost their relevancy. The argument for the status quo, is based upon assured mutual destruction; should a potential enemy, terrorist or otherwise, threaten to use nuclear weapons against the UK then the UK will then ensure a nuclear response was used - thereby potentially annihilating both sides. This is very simple logic, and easy to grasp, however, it makes the assumption that the UK is a world power and needs to be involved independently with world affairs. The Empire has been, and it's not coming back.
In my view, the real reason for keeping Trident, is that it enables the UK to keep it's seat at the UN Security Council, without our nuclear weapons, we simply would not have the credibility to sit there any longer. Now this point, is a discussion in itself, as it about the UK's position in the world, and how that influences UK based multi-national corporate trade.
So, back to the deterrent itself, why does the UK need it for purely defensive reasons? I cannot think of any genuine reason for retaining it, other than the potential for the US/NATO to say that they don't care about us anymore, and let Russia or whatever country, bomb us. Terrorists, don't give a hoot about nuclear retaliation, because we don't have anywhere to drop a bomb on them. If Trident was cancelled, we could afford to have a capable conventional deterrent consisting of more highly trained military personal with better equipment, protection, ships, aeroplanes etc.
So, have I just turned into a salad eating sandal wearing hippy, or is conventional wisdom past it's sell by date?
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 24, 2015 6:34:23 GMT
So, have I just turned into a salad eating sandal wearing hippy, or is conventional wisdom past it's sell by date? I don't know Richie, cause I have more pressing issues to be dealing with, but I'm sure that some self aggrandising little professor is about to tell you  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 7:31:43 GMT
Terrorists (hidden army) are the worlds enemy at this time but, let's not forget countries like Russia, China, N Korea, Iran are all still waiting in the wings with people capable of evil things in the future.
Never let your guard down and always carry a big stick
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 24, 2015 7:53:59 GMT
The UK has never ever had nuclear weapons as a detterrent.
Soviet documents confirmed that the USSR did not take the UK's nuclear weapons seriously.
I strongly doubt anyone senior in the UK militairy thought differently either.
The UK has nuclear weapons as a (hugely costly) flag waving excercise only.
We developed them in the 50's, before Suez,before the penny had dropped with many that Britian was no longer a world power.
Since then it's been a case of no govt. wanting to be seen as the one that gets rid of our 'indepenant detterrent'.
What an expensive & utterly pointless farce.
Our permanent position on the UN security council is of far more value.
|
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 8:20:26 GMT
Terrorists (hidden army) are the worlds enemy at this time but, let's not forget countries like Russia, China, N Korea, Iran are all still waiting in the wings with people capable of evil things in the future. Never let your guard down and always carry a big stick I agree with you, but I say that nuclear weapons give us a stick that's to big to use. I'd rather give our forces an aircraft carrier or two sized stick to threaten Johnny foreigner with. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 8:36:52 GMT
Terrorists (hidden army) are the worlds enemy at this time but, let's not forget countries like Russia, China, N Korea, Iran are all still waiting in the wings with people capable of evil things in the future. Never let your guard down and always carry a big stick I agree with you, but I say that nuclear weapons give us a stick that's to big to use. I'd rather give our forces an aircraft carrier or two sized stick to threaten Johnny foreigner with. Well, that's the idea rich.......we all have big sticks that do massive damage so we don't use them The day we put it down is the day a country with far more manpower gets overly confident |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 24, 2015 8:44:56 GMT
No, no and no is my opinion on this issue. We abandon nuclear weapons at our peril. There are plenty of examples throughout recent history that shows potential enemies taking advantage of perceived weaknesses in our guard. For example the Argies took the signal from John Notts strategic defence review of 1981 that was to sell off our aircraft carriers, many frigates and destroyers plus the proposed permanent withdrawal of the ice patrol ship Endurance all gave the Argies the green light to invade. Had they waited a year then the Falklands would now be the Malvinas for sure. As a previous poster said, there are many unstable countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons and we must be able to counter these threats.
National security is the governments highest priority. Always has been and always will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 24, 2015 8:48:12 GMT
I agree with you, but I say that nuclear weapons give us a stick that's to big to use. I'd rather give our forces an aircraft carrier or two sized stick to threaten Johnny foreigner with. Well, that's the idea rich.......we all have big sticks that do massive damage so we don't use them The day we put it down is the day a country with far more manpower gets overly confident This doesn't really make sense and is a tired argument perpetuated by the influential arms industry. There are only a handful of countries in the world with nuclear weapons, how come all of the rest have not been invaded or attacked if not having such weapons makes you such a soft target. Also the countries that seem to be the biggest targets for terrorist attacks are the ones with nuclear weapons anyway. It doesn't deter them. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 8:49:29 GMT
I agree with you, but I say that nuclear weapons give us a stick that's to big to use. I'd rather give our forces an aircraft carrier or two sized stick to threaten Johnny foreigner with. Well, that's the idea rich.......we all have big sticks that do massive damage so we don't use them The day we put it down is the day a country with far more manpower gets overly confident The only countries you can be talking about are Russia and China. How would a lack of a nuclear deterrent protect us? Would we nuke Russia if they invaded Ukraine? Would we press the button if they invaded Afghanistan again? How about Belarus? Poland? When would you be pressing the button, Prime Minister Fraise? Wouldn't NATO have a say in things? |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Aug 24, 2015 8:56:57 GMT
What unstable countries have got nukes?
There's us, the Yanks, the Russians, France & Chinese who've got 'proper' nukes & the ability to hit anywhere with them. Israel might have some due to the Yank connection, India & Pakistan have got a couple of old outdated things they most probably fire by attaching them to a rock & catapult.
If Russia suddenly become the big bad guy that the Daily Mail tells you it is & fires their 2,000 odd nukes at us we're fucked, and whether we fire the 4 back we'll have at sea on our one sub that's out on patrol inna going make any difference.
No-one will suddenly invade us because we didn't have them.... What's stopping Russia invading us now? Would we really launch a couple of nukes at Russia knowing we could flatten a city at best, when their responce would destroy our entire country? No fucker will invade us anyway, London is the capital of the world & all the rich & powerful people & coporations would never let us get invaded.
More troops who're better trained with better equipment is what you need nowadays, aircraft carriers & jets & drones so you can deal with scumbag terrorists in places like Syria.
..... Having said all that, though, I still wouldn't want us to give up our nukes, infact I hope we extend our fleet of nuke carrying subs.
|
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 24, 2015 9:13:14 GMT
The debate isn't whether one should get rid of nuclear weapons. That's a misnomer as any rational person wants rid of them. It's more nuanced.
As the UK (nor anyone else) cannot predict the precise nature of any future threat then international agreement is needed over nuclear weapons decommissioning. You say nuclear weapons have "lost their relevancy", but as has been borne out recently with Iran, it's this multilateral approach you reject that has stopped Iran from developing weapons grade plutonium. It's multilateralism that has also rained in Pakistan and India in recent times too.
Until it can be determined with absolute clarity that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat (consider the recent example of Iran) then it's ridiculous to advocate unilateral disarmament.
The point is that if, as you advocate, the UK steps outside multilateral frameworks and starts operating unilaterally then you have to expect everyone else to as well. Therefore UK does what it wants, leaves NATO, unilaterally disarms and deliberately fails to seek international agreement; Iran then does what it wants and obtains weapons grade plutonium; India does what it wants; Pakistan does what it wants and escalates conflict with India backed by China and Russia; North African countries do what they want and develop weapons grade plutonium; ad infinitum. It's about potential - without multilateralism the process of potential escalation goes uncontrolled.
This is essentially why developed countries have formulated defence strategies built around multilateralism and not unilateral guesswork. It's basic international relations.
I can understand the idealism around unilateral nuclear disarmament. However it's dangerous, incredibly risky, overly reliant only upon guesswork and no British electorate will ever vote for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 24, 2015 9:43:37 GMT
As a poster has said the 'independent' nuclear deterrent is to keep the U.K.'s seat on the U.N.'s Security Council. That seat gives the U.K. a veto on anything we don't like! So, potentially very useful. For example, Russia has used it's veto to block action over Syria. I agree that a lot of the military don't like it particularly The British Army as it affects spending priorities. It reminds me of an old military joke,"Nuclear weapons are like civil servants, they can't be fired!".
|
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 10:22:48 GMT
The debate isn't whether one should get rid of nuclear weapons. That's a misnomer as any rational person wants rid of them. It's more nuanced. As the UK (nor anyone else) cannot predict the precise nature of any future threat then international agreement is needed over nuclear weapons decommissioning. You say nuclear weapons have "lost their relevancy", but as has been borne out recently with Iran, it's this multilateral approach you reject that has stopped Iran from developing weapons grade plutonium. It's multilateralism that has also rained in Pakistan and India in recent times too. Until it can be determined with absolute clarity that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat (consider the recent example of Iran) then it's ridiculous to advocate unilateral disarmament. The point is that if, as you advocate, the UK steps outside multilateral frameworks and starts operating unilaterally then you have to expect everyone else to as well. Therefore UK does what it wants, leaves NATO, unilaterally disarms and deliberately fails to seek international agreement; Iran then does what it wants and obtains weapons grade plutonium; India does what it wants; Pakistan does what it wants and escalates conflict with India backed by China and Russia; North African countries do what they want and develop weapons grade plutonium; ad infinitum. It's about potential - without multilateralism the process of potential escalation goes uncontrolled. This is essentially why developed countries have formulated defence strategies built around multilateralism and not unilateral guesswork. It's basic international relations. I can understand the idealism around unilateral nuclear disarmament. However it's dangerous, incredibly risky, overly reliant only upon guesswork and no British electorate will ever vote for it. I think you're missing my point. The examples you have provided, would not have been affected if we did not have Trident. I'm not in favour of complete unilateral disarmament or leaving NATO, and I thought I made that point reasonably clear. This whole discussion is effectively meaningless anyway, as it's in the US interest to have us sat next to them at the Security Council, and of course, where do we buy Trident from...? Trident has more to do with maintaining wealth and economic interests than defence. Going back to Iran, are you suggesting that we/NATO/US would drop a nuke on their nuclear facility? No way, it was contaminate too many oilfields, so a whole array of conventional and cyber weapons would be used against Iran. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 24, 2015 11:56:38 GMT
As a poster has said the 'independent' nuclear deterrent is to keep the U.K.'s seat on the U.N.'s Security Council. That seat gives the U.K. a veto on anything we don't like! So, potentially very useful. For example, Russia has used it's veto to block action over Syria. I agree that a lot of the military don't like it particularly The British Army as it affects spending priorities. It reminds me of an old military joke,"Nuclear weapons are like civil servants, they can't be fired!". Does it stipulate in the rules of the Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council that you must have Nuclear Weapons? |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 24, 2015 12:52:56 GMT
If a level debate was allowed and the public became educated as to the actual costs of maintaining our nuclear arsenal, i don't honestly think that they would prefer it as an option instead of spending it on the NHS or education.
It's just something we cannot afford or need anymore. The yanks will always have them, as will the Chinese and Russia........leave em to it. As other posters have said, it's not like other countries similar to ours are facing a threat of invasion due to not having them is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Aug 24, 2015 13:24:25 GMT
The world would be a better place without them, but theyre here to stay, and as long as they are we should have them. They might not be relevant right now but noone knows when they might be again. Our ability to protect ourselves should be item number one on the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 24, 2015 13:29:08 GMT
If a level debate was allowed and the public became educated as to the actual costs of maintaining our nuclear arsenal, i don't honestly think that they would prefer it as an option instead of spending it on the NHS or education. It's just something we cannot afford or need anymore. The yanks will always have them, as will the Chinese and Russia........leave em to it. As other posters have said, it's not like other countries similar to ours are facing a threat of invasion due to not having them is it? I think you are probably right here Billy. On the basis of cost I would imagine the electorate would/could opt to put the money in the NHS instead. Equally ,they may be frightened into thinking that we will always need "the deterrent " Personally I don't know enough about the intricacies of the issue to make my mind up. This is where we should (and may have to) be able to trust our MPs but obviously we are always going to be sceptical about motives and where the truth lies. For me it's part of the problem of the status and position of the UK , post colonialism, post our manufacturing base, in a global world, with migration , terrorism , changing power bases, the EU question. The UK still wants to be a big player, and whilst we are not insignificant, perhaps we will need to come to terms with our relatively reduced importance. Is hanging on to the deterrent our last attempt to be a world player or is it really needed, as Brits says? Can our defence be secured through alliances alone? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Aug 24, 2015 13:36:14 GMT
The UK has never ever had nuclear weapons as a detterrent. Soviet documents confirmed that the USSR did not take the UK's nuclear weapons seriously. I strongly doubt anyone senior in the UK militairy thought differently either. The UK has nuclear weapons as a (hugely costly) flag waving excercise only. We developed them in the 50's, before Suez,before the penny had dropped with many that Britian was no longer a world power. Since then it's been a case of no govt. wanting to be seen as the one that gets rid of our 'indepenant detterrent'. What an expensive & utterly pointless farce. Our permanent position on the UN security council is of far more value. I would say that any nuclear weapon pointed at your arse will be taken seriously. Its not how many missiles you have, its the warheads that matter and even one submarine with 16 missiles, each containing 8 warheads could cause severe damage to any country, no matter how big it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 14:19:41 GMT
The world would be a better place without them, but theyre here to stay, and as long as they are we should have them. They might not be relevant right now but noone knows when they might be again. Our ability to protect ourselves should be item number one on the list. I agree with most of that except the first bit. weve tried a world without them and there has been many many wars with huge numbers of deaths Hmm, actually....the world would be a better place without them.....there'd prob be less people  |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 24, 2015 15:09:43 GMT
The debate isn't whether one should get rid of nuclear weapons. That's a misnomer as any rational person wants rid of them. It's more nuanced. As the UK (nor anyone else) cannot predict the precise nature of any future threat then international agreement is needed over nuclear weapons decommissioning. You say nuclear weapons have "lost their relevancy", but as has been borne out recently with Iran, it's this multilateral approach you reject that has stopped Iran from developing weapons grade plutonium. It's multilateralism that has also rained in Pakistan and India in recent times too. Until it can be determined with absolute clarity that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat (consider the recent example of Iran) then it's ridiculous to advocate unilateral disarmament. The point is that if, as you advocate, the UK steps outside multilateral frameworks and starts operating unilaterally then you have to expect everyone else to as well. Therefore UK does what it wants, leaves NATO, unilaterally disarms and deliberately fails to seek international agreement; Iran then does what it wants and obtains weapons grade plutonium; India does what it wants; Pakistan does what it wants and escalates conflict with India backed by China and Russia; North African countries do what they want and develop weapons grade plutonium; ad infinitum. It's about potential - without multilateralism the process of potential escalation goes uncontrolled. This is essentially why developed countries have formulated defence strategies built around multilateralism and not unilateral guesswork. It's basic international relations. I can understand the idealism around unilateral nuclear disarmament. However it's dangerous, incredibly risky, overly reliant only upon guesswork and no British electorate will ever vote for it. ... I'm not in favour of complete unilateral disarmament or leaving NATO... No. An interesting take on things though. The thread is entitled "UK unilateral nuclear disarmament". I've merely given a view as to how and why unilateral nuclear disarmament cannot and, moreover, will not happen. It's each to their own view and you don't have to agree with it. However it is worth noting that you have actually agreed with what I said - that unilateral nuclear disarmament is a bad idea and that multilateralism is the way forwards through multilateral institutions like NATO. Given the title of the thread there isn't any other point to it. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 24, 2015 15:29:26 GMT
The UK has never ever had nuclear weapons as a detterrent. Soviet documents confirmed that the USSR did not take the UK's nuclear weapons seriously. I strongly doubt anyone senior in the UK militairy thought differently either. The UK has nuclear weapons as a (hugely costly) flag waving excercise only. We developed them in the 50's, before Suez,before the penny had dropped with many that Britian was no longer a world power. Since then it's been a case of no govt. wanting to be seen as the one that gets rid of our 'indepenant detterrent'. What an expensive & utterly pointless farce. Our permanent position on the UN security council is of far more value. I would say that any nuclear weapon pointed at your arse will be taken seriously. Its not how many missiles you have, its the warheads that matter and even one submarine with 16 missiles, each containing 8 warheads could cause severe damage to any country, no matter how big it is. Under the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review our SSBN subs carry 40 targetable warheads in 8 missiles. Although the submarines capacity is 192 targetable warheads in 16 missiles, SSBNs have not deployed at full capacity since the end of the Cold War. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 24, 2015 18:49:16 GMT
The UK has never ever had nuclear weapons as a detterrent. Soviet documents confirmed that the USSR did not take the UK's nuclear weapons seriously. I strongly doubt anyone senior in the UK militairy thought differently either. The UK has nuclear weapons as a (hugely costly) flag waving excercise only. We developed them in the 50's, before Suez,before the penny had dropped with many that Britian was no longer a world power. Since then it's been a case of no govt. wanting to be seen as the one that gets rid of our 'indepenant detterrent'. What an expensive & utterly pointless farce. Our permanent position on the UN security council is of far more value. I would say that any nuclear weapon pointed at your arse will be taken seriously. Its not how many missiles you have, its the warheads that matter and even one submarine with 16 missiles, each containing 8 warheads could cause severe damage to any country, no matter how big it is. That's not what the Soviets thought. Fact is their records show that our tiny number of missiles was not an issue to them. Which in itself proves we had no independent deterrent. What a waste of money. If we spent 25% of it on ensuring our forces had proper gear,an aircraft carrier or two,guns that work e.t.c. that would be far more useful. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 18:51:14 GMT
I think you're missing my point... I'm not in favour of complete unilateral disarmament or leaving NATO... No. An interesting take on things though. The thread is entitled "UK unilateral nuclear disarmament". I've merely given a view as to how and why unilateral nuclear disarmament cannot and, moreover, will not happen. It's each to their own view and you don't have to agree with it. However it is worth noting that you have actually agreed with what I said - that unilateral nuclear disarmament is a bad idea and that multilateralism is the way forwards through multilateral institutions like NATO. Given the title of the thread there isn't any other point to it. If you were not making a point about my comments, then why quote them? Just say your piece, without quoting me. As for your point about multilateralism, I do not see any issue with being part of a multilateral organisation such as NATO, having unilaterally decommissioned Trident. |
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 24, 2015 18:52:57 GMT
I think we should keep our nukes and regardless of what the know alls on here say we WILL keep our nukes
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 19:03:23 GMT
I've always said that no one will use nukes (Big Ones) until they have a safe place to go(not rocket science is it). However perhaps it is. perhaps we are about to leave this planet in some small measure at least, then the value of Earth will be diminished and war will break out. In fact war might even be desirable to some as it would stop Billions wanting to leave. Doubt I will be here to see it and in all honesty with my dad in the civil defence I was well aware of how close we came during the Cuban Missile Standoff to blowing each other up. I'm pleased to announce that we were told it would be safe as long as we sheltered under the formica table, then lived under the stairs which was stocked with water and beans. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Retro-Vintage-50-60s-Dusty-Pink-Formica-Table-CurvedMetal-Legs-/111748540564One for sale here if anyone is worried. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 24, 2015 19:11:59 GMT
I would say that any nuclear weapon pointed at your arse will be taken seriously. Its not how many missiles you have, its the warheads that matter and even one submarine with 16 missiles, each containing 8 warheads could cause severe damage to any country, no matter how big it is. That's not what the Soviets thought. Fact is their records show that our tiny number of missiles was not an issue to them. Which in itself proves we had no independent deterrent. What a waste of money. If we spent 25% of it on ensuring our forces had proper gear,an aircraft carrier or two,guns that work e.t.c. that would be far more useful. You cannot say that it has been a waste of money though can you? The fact we are still here as an independent nation able to defend our ourselves says it has not been a waste of money. So the Soviets weren't worried about 192 targeted nuclear warheads. Yeh right that's straight from the CND Staff Handbook. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 24, 2015 19:39:09 GMT
The debate isn't whether one should get rid of nuclear weapons. That's a misnomer as any rational person wants rid of them. It's more nuanced. As the UK (nor anyone else) cannot predict the precise nature of any future threat then international agreement is needed over nuclear weapons decommissioning. You say nuclear weapons have "lost their relevancy", but as has been borne out recently with Iran, it's this multilateral approach you reject that has stopped Iran from developing weapons grade plutonium. It's multilateralism that has also rained in Pakistan and India in recent times too. Until it can be determined with absolute clarity that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat (consider the recent example of Iran) then it's ridiculous to advocate unilateral disarmament. The point is that if, as you advocate, the UK steps outside multilateral frameworks and starts operating unilaterally then you have to expect everyone else to as well. Therefore UK does what it wants, leaves NATO, unilaterally disarms and deliberately fails to seek international agreement; Iran then does what it wants and obtains weapons grade plutonium; India does what it wants; Pakistan does what it wants and escalates conflict with India backed by China and Russia; North African countries do what they want and develop weapons grade plutonium; ad infinitum. It's about potential - without multilateralism the process of potential escalation goes uncontrolled. This is essentially why developed countries have formulated defence strategies built around multilateralism and not unilateral guesswork. It's basic international relations. I can understand the idealism around unilateral nuclear disarmament. However it's dangerous, incredibly risky, overly reliant only upon guesswork and no British electorate will ever vote for it. I think you're missing my point....I'm not in favour of complete unilateral disarmament or leaving NATO and I thought I made that point reasonably clear... ...As for your point about multilateralism, I do not see any issue with being part of a multilateral organisation such as NATO, having unilaterally decommissioned Trident.  Each to their own. Good to see you've got a sense of humour. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 24, 2015 19:58:09 GMT
That's not what the Soviets thought. Fact is their records show that our tiny number of missiles was not an issue to them. Which in itself proves we had no independent deterrent. What a waste of money. If we spent 25% of it on ensuring our forces had proper gear,an aircraft carrier or two,guns that work e.t.c. that would be far more useful. You cannot say that it has been a waste of money though can you? The fact we are still here as an independent nation able to defend our ourselves says it has not been a waste of money. So the Soviets weren't worried about 192 targeted nuclear warheads. Yeh right that's straight from the CND Staff Handbook. No it's from the files that we're released after the collapse of the USSR. It's a fact that our deterrent wasn't dettering them. Therefore it has been an absolute waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Aug 24, 2015 21:52:10 GMT
That's not what the Soviets thought. Fact is their records show that our tiny number of missiles was not an issue to them. Which in itself proves we had no independent deterrent. What a waste of money. If we spent 25% of it on ensuring our forces had proper gear,an aircraft carrier or two,guns that work e.t.c. that would be far more useful. You cannot say that it has been a waste of money though can you? The fact we are still here as an independent nation able to defend our ourselves says it has not been a waste of money. So the Soviets weren't worried about 192 targeted nuclear warheads. Yeh right that's straight from the CND Staff Handbook. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 22:02:16 GMT
When you put your life in the hands of the enemy you lose your right for debate .
70 years after Hiroshima World peace still prevails .
The end .
|
|
