But it's a common theme - what Pakistan, India, Iran, and Noth Korea, for example, have in common is that they have all invested billions of dollars in their nuclear weapons programs, while their own populations are starving. So (sadly) this sort of ideology is not a new concept.
True but we in the UK are supposed to be a first-world nation and spend billions on defence and a lot of this money is just for showing off. Who in their right mind would have thought we need not one but two relatively large aircraft carriers? I told people at work that we'd end up selling one at least when it was relatively new as we/uk could not afford it - I was almost right as one of them is often used for spare parts. Then we had these ships going around without aircraft of all things. Rather than waste billions trying to believe that 'Britannia rules the waves,' those billions could have easily be used to take people off the streets that do not have a home, fund winter fuel payments, more doctors, better health facilities, better social housing, roads that were not a mass of potholes, make roads safer by repainting the white markings, improve healthcare, pay unpaid carers - the list goes on and on
The USA is the only nation to date that has used nukes to subdue an enemy and the reason they did this was it was the easier way out and
the biggest fact was, the enemy could not hit back with a nuke//s. This is why developing nations, rightly or wrongly go for nukes - ie India at risk 24/7 from Pakistan and more so China. Iran's woes, self-inflicted IMO wants a nuke.
Sadly, politicians who make the decisions say one thing but mean another EG "put country and her people first" but as we all know - they put themselves first, friends second and everyone else comes last. Then, the same politicians, want to look good on the world stage and in their view, having a very powerful armed forces along with aircraft carriers makes them feel big and when you add nukes to the ****nal, they feel invincible and see themselves as the chiefs of police in a world order.
In my view there would be a lot less wars/fighting if it was done in the good old way when warriors carried a sword weighting possibly 10/12bs, a shield etc and were toe to toe having people and importantly, the head of the clan/country often joined in on the front line unlike our look hiding in the bunkers that were made with our money.
It is almost a worldwide problem and the only difference is, that different countries get to the nukes stages at different times - we got our first nukes in the early 50's and I guess around that time, the money could have been better spent as the UK was not a great place to live in when compared with other, so-called 'first-world nations.'. I blame the politicians and I'm one of those people that would be more inclined to believe the words Pinnochio rather than a politician. It is so sad to see so many innocent people die in wars and countries that mass produce weapons live off the woes other nations. This is nothing new and in countries that mass produce weapons, their politicians for their interests will shit-stir whilst trying to be peacemakers at the same time
- hopefully it's not what he is thinking.
