That would seem a very odd interpretation indeed. What the Treasury are saying is that there is no point having 240 V bombers unless you have 240 bombs - and no one is trying to claim that the UK had 240 bombs by 1958.
Yes but the Treasury managed to virtually halve the numbers of V-bombers, this reflects the difficulty in producing bombs seen as they were hand made, luxury devices that eventually numbered around 25-30 by 1958, built by very expensive skilled engineers . I would expect that the MoD would object to having their bomber fleet reduced by such an extent, apart from the V-Bomber's conventional capability 25-30 Bombers wouldn't look like a credible deterrent, certainly not as a propaganda deterrent.
Joke?
The operation was paid for by a Serbian royal prince related to Victoria and the Tsar, make of that what you will, but the strategy of the Allies in WW1 was to utilise the nationalistic Slavs in order to destabilise the Balkans which made the Axis plans of building a railway from Berlin to Baghdad problematic. This is not a WW1 thread though!
More Paranoia?
No this was reported by various US Presidents and overtly referred to in Eisenhower's farewell Address on January 17th 1961.
Cuba 1961
Who actually had nuclear missiles stationed on foreign soil pointing at the 'home' territory of either of the protagonists?. Which of the two protagonists climbed down? Which of the protagonists actually used the threat of nuclear annihilation in that crisis?
Yes 'real' because that's how the media span the American intelligence assessments that the Soviets might be able to start a global war by 1967.