Hi, this is on the news and thought it would be an interesting discussion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6205174.stm So what's peoples views on this? Should Trident be replaced? Should the UK scrap it's nulcear weapons? Personally I say scrap them. We are never going to use them and we know it. I think the idea of nuclear war is over as anyone capable of waging it is not going to bother as they know everyone loses. Even rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan know that to use a nuclear weapon as a state is like declaring war on the entire free world. So the only people willing to use them are terrorists and it's not like we could or would nuke em back. So what exactly are we keeping our nuclear deterant for then? FNG
Thats what the Nuclear weapons are good for. keeping the world from destroying themselves. If there never was an atom bomb the US & Soviet Russia would've gone to war. But since both had Nukes they didn't want to be destroyed. I don't think Britain should destroy its arsenal tho. If you have them might as well keep them in my mind.
It is more destabilizing to disarm than to maintain a nuclear deterrent force. If all the West disarmed there would be tremendous incentive for smaller states to obtain nuclear weapons in order to, shall we say, strengthen their negotiating position and act as a major player in the world.
MAD....interesting topic. Do we really need a replacement delivery system when the only people willing to use nukes are terrorists (and even then not likely proper nukes but 'dirty bombs' composed of nuclear waste) Cheaper to build conventional warhead isn't it? or develops chem/bio warfare
There is no good reason to assume that the only people likely to be interested in acquiring nuclear weapons are terrorists. North Korea, Iran, and other unspecified but radically minded states have the wherewithal to build outright or purchase the technology to develop nukes.
Course the stuff I don't mention.....Yeah I know but they're (theoretically) less likely to use them since they can be hit with nukes (unlikely, but certainly a much bigger chance)
thats my point. If Iran built a nuke and dropped it on Israel, Iran would face the total and agreed wrath of the entire world with the exception of the remaining few bonkers middle east countries. They would risk being nuked back (and I bloody sure Israel wouldn't take long thinking about it), they would certainly risk invasion by a united nations force to force regime change. Iran has little to gain in nuking Israel or anyone else. No country can use nukes becuase as a country they are vulnrable to the wrath of the combined world. FNG
Yeah, but if your only thinking of the "great" beyond, Then I don't think they would care. They just want to do what they can for there god then get the hell up there. or down there
but if they don't care then they would just use them anyway and not worry about the consequencies or that fact that other peole have nukes. besides I believe that the vast majority of leaders are corrupt and power greedy and will not jepodise there power and wealth especially if they risk being hung in the hague FNG
I find the whole "if we get nuked let's take someone out with us" thought a bit disturbing. Let's face it if some nation were to get nuked today that nation would be wiped out. But if they fire a counternuke at least they take out their attackers as well. Whoopdeedoo, we're dead but so are those bad guys. And if they don't fire a nuke themselves either the rest of the world is likely to rise against the aggresors, or if the aggresor was really effective noone but them would remain leaving them with radiationpoisoned-world domination. So please help me out here, is the world even more insane then I thought, or am I more insane then I thought?
That is the question that my generation had to deal with during the Cold War years. Yes, it seems insane on the surface that the world would be safer because of the concept of mutually assured destruction however let's not forget that despite numerous brush wars and east/west idealogical conflicts around the world during the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's no nuclear conflict occurred during the time that MADD was in force. There was a forced stability and instability is dangerous when thousands of nuclear weapons exist in the world(which is the reality that must be dealt with).
Militaries in general exist for two reasons to: to fight to be so scary no one will want to fight you. (ie mess with us and we'll slap you so hard your children will feel it! ) MAD was a scary concept but it did make sure that the cold war powers mostly sparred with one another. I think myself in a world where nukes are finding their way into hands of questionable stability it would be an act of madness to deprive outselves of the bomb.
Even if the religious leaders do, the majority of the people will not prefer death over life, particularly their own. Exactly how many Christians willingly gave themselves up to Roman authorities to be martyred in the first two centuries? A few thousand, no more. Out of a population that rapidly neared millions.
