[Cowperson]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the probability of a nuclear weapon being used is actually far greater today than it was in the 70's and 80's?

The danger today, it seems to me, is that you have rogue nations or terrorists who may not adhere to the concept of MAD - mutual assured destruction.

Back in the 70's and 80's there were marches attracting hundreds of thousands, particularly in Europe, calling for unilateral disarmament by the West as a show of good faith to the Soviet Union.

It seemed to me at the time that those people didn't seem to grasp that MAD was the concept that prevented large global conflicts rather than making it more likely. MAD turned the cold war into a series of low level struggles via proxy clients in obscure places like Vietnam rather than an all out nuclear exchange.

Today, MAD doesn't appear to be a deterrent for some of the rogue elements on our planet and I'm sure we could all scare up a plethora of experts that feel the detonation of a nuclear device in a major city in western civilization is only a matter of time.

Do these protesters simply need an obvious target like the Cold War to get them interested?

This protest at a British Submarine Base seemed to be one of those very rare instances where we hear a call for unilateral disarment.

Does Britain need nuclear weapons?

Cowperson