?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Britain As A Nuclear Power

Full nuclear weapons debate urged

So the Cold War is over and there is no great threat to us from any major nuclear power. As mentioned by MPs they could serve no useful purpose in the fight against terror, so the only real reason to keep them is for insurance.

And yet we won't let countries like Iran develop them (admittedly not having more countries with Nuclear weapons is a good thing). Surely, we should stop being hypocritical about this?

Not having Nuclear weapons anymore would send a powerful political message out to the world saying they're not needed in modern society. Surely it's worth whatever risk there is in not having them to do this?

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
king_pellinor
30th Jun, 2006 11:52 (UTC)
"So the Cold War is over and there is no great threat to us from any major nuclear power."

Whether the threat is nuclear or not isn't relevant - there's no way a nuke can directly defend against another nuke in the way that say having a load of tanks helps keep enemy tanks away.

The point of the nuclear deterrent is to say "we have the capability to squash you like a bug at a moment's notice". That then (hopefully) stops people acting like bugs that we might want to squash.

I'm sure that North Korea, for example, is terribly conscious of the fact that it could cease to exist in a few hours. If nobody had nukes, then North Korea could happily try to re-unify the peninsula, on the grounds that the US doesn't have the spare troops to interfere - or the time to deploy them.

So the nuclear capability is to deter conventional as well as nuclear aggression .

We won't let other countries develop them because, basically, we don't trust them. This is indeed hypocritical, in a Groucho Marxist sort of way: we won't let anyone join the club, as wanting to is a sign that you shouldn't be allowed to. But I think "prove you can play nice, then we'll talk about what toys you can have" is a reasonable approach to take.

I think disarming, in any way, would send a message to certain areas of the world that we don't think they're needed. It would send a message to other parts of the world that we wouldn't dare use strong sanctions like nukes, and thus imply that they needn't worry so much about other sanctions either. That's not a way to keep the world a quiet place, IMO.
(Anonymous)
1st Jul, 2006 07:17 (UTC)
I believe the U.K. as a signatory of The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, is also required to scrap its nuclear weapons.
aquamindy
6th Jul, 2006 18:19 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the party on this one. My brother is an officer in the US navy, somewhat high up and is a submariner. The scary thing to know is that the cold war is still going on under the water. Nothing has changed there. Nothing at all.
(Anonymous)
18th Jul, 2006 16:26 (UTC)
Where has the lazy fellow gone. What is the point of a blog when it isn't there? Oh dear, perhaps he has snuffed it.
Exits to The Dead March........................
(Anonymous)
19th Jul, 2006 05:45 (UTC)
Abandoned like a pair of old socks.
We deserve better than this, Owen so finger out.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Me

Other Sites of Interest

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow