Agree with that totally. To be honest, nuclear weapons are pretty unusable, can be flawed in design, or just un-necessary in some cases. What's the point in starting a war with somebody, when you want to capture a country, and you flatten a city you want to capture, and put your own forces at risk with fallout? I realise in some cases they can be useful in deterring other nations if you have a thread bare military, or have a larger more aggressive neighbour. But in the cases of more technologically advanced countries like Russia, USA, Britain, we don't really have to rely on them as much, as relations are no-where near as hot as they used to be. It's like NATO-what is the point? There's as much bickering as in the UN. And it's crippling countries with financial contributions. The West should pretty much just put the bad history behind, and just start trusting more, then all this un-necessary fear will dissapate. It's just annoying how we have a lot more trust with once-enemies, and yet continue to waste money on nuclear weapons that just sit there and decay, when we could use the money with co-operation, re-building our own country, and just getting on with our daily lives. A joint force with larger nations helping each other would be far more cost effective, and beneficial. We have all this technology we can share with others, that imo, would greatly improve the balance globally, and get rid of mistrust.
) grumble about Thatcher and how terrible she was. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that she took the right economic decisions, removed us from having to rely on outdated industries, and set Britain on a path to growth. She did what needed to be done at the time, and though people suffered at the time they were far fewer than those that would have suffered over generations if she hadn't.