"Steve Shaw - 05 Mar 15 - 06:02 AM"

1: "Israel still won't admit that it's got the bomb. A sort of secret, eh?"

Nope it neither confirms or denies their existence. But considering the tight corners that Israel has found itself in the past, particularly in 1967 and again in 1973 then any nuclear arsenal they possess there would appear to be many with extremely cool heads and nerves of steel in Israel charged with looking after those weapons.

Now had either Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1984 do you think they might have been used? Iran get a nuclear weapon, then Saudi Arabia will get a weapon, then Egypt will get a weapon, etc, etc. World much better off Shaw?

2: "The only trouble with this "deterrent" malarkey is that there's no evidence that it works."

Oh I don't know about that - The "Cold War" in Europe lasted from 1947 until 1991 and saw the nuclear arms race from start to finish without a single exchange - mainly due to the USA being the first to develop a weapon and due to the fact that the USA was the mainstay of NATO. The EU which did not come into existence until 1993, two years after the end of the "Cold war" - making your idiotic contention - "I think the existence of the EU has prevented a major European conflagration but I can't prove it." - utterly risible.

3: "It didn't work on Argentina, it doesn't work on Hamas, it doesn't work on Hezbollah, it didn't work on the 9-11 attackers, it doesn't work on the Taliban. It didn't work on the Vietcong or Saddam."

In the interests of observing what would be considered as responding proportionately (UN Security Council requirement in the face of aggression) - you do not use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Doesn't mean that if issued with the threat of the possible use of nuclear weapons had been issued I think "It would have deterred Argentina - It would work on Hamas faced with total destruction of their only toe-hold on earth (Amazing how being faced with a credible threat of total annihilation concentrates the mind) - It would work in a similar vein with Hezbollah - it might have saved a great deal of time, money and effort had the US response to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan been tactical nuclear (Maybe next time) - It would have worked on the North Vietnamese - And the threat of it most certainly did work against Saddam in 1991, Why do you think no CW or BW were used by the Iraqis in Desert Storm? - Rhetorical question; Saddam's pals the Soviets told him precisely what NATO's response to use of CW or BW weapons was - Tactical Nuclear which would have cost Saddam his country

4: "You think nuclear weapons deter attack. You can't prove that either."

Well you tell me Steve Shaw what war has been fought to date between two nuclear armed powers that has remained conventional? (Last shooting war between India and Pakistan was in 1999 - The Kargil War - India nuclear since 1974 with operational nuclear weapons; Pakistan only having carried out it's first nuclear test firing in 1998 had no operational delivery system). So instead of speculation I would say that the reason for no nuclear exchanges since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is down entirely to the fact that nuclear deterrence does work.