Hasbeen,

Totally agree. We are incapable of defending ourselves, thanks to our low spending on defence. Army recruiting advertisements on TV with women telling us it's "my Army" are not much use.

Even if we had all the nuclear capability that we could afford or borrow China would take us out with one pre-emptive strike.

I agree ise mise however we both know they if armed only with chop sticks would overrun us
Even if as ttbn rants we each had a nuclear bomb down our pants

Nuclear armed cruise missiles & ICBMs are a damn good bargaining chip. That we could make it unprofitable for an invading force to try to land here is the best way to protect our shore line, not shooting small arms at tank landing craft.

There is no way we could defend ourselves today, even against a minor invader. There is no way we could defeat China. The only approach is to have enough power to do a lot of damage, enough to deter an attack, then negotiate. With our current pop guns, we have nothing to negotiate with.

Belly change one word of your last post to get it right. Yes they "could" overrun us, but we have to become costly enough for them not to want to run over us. If the potential cost is too high there is no profit in it for them, particularly when they own so much that would be damaged

The peaceniks hated the mutually assured destruction strategy, but it proved successful. Others may have worked too, although I doubt it, but MAD has proven successful.

Hasbeen I fully understood your posts,agree in the most part
Yes you know I too support Nuclear power
And if, and it is if, we do not already have Nuclear weapons we should have
Still convinced not even massive wounds would stop China, they are not know for caring for their own people
They are however known for a very very long term our look
The amusing thing about those peaceniks is they thought if we put are weapons away the otherside would too