Should Britain have nukes? (article)

[Dan D]

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3430
"The United Kingdom has only one way to deliver its nuclear weapons: U.S.-built submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) called Tridents, which are carried on British Vanguard-class subs. These subs are aging and due to be decommissioned in 2024. Since the British government estimates it will take 17 years to design and build a new submarine, a decision looms and an unusual debate has arisen: should the U.K. even bother maintaining its own nuclear deterrent?
Britain's answer will almost certainly be yes, but the fact that there is a real debate at all is interesting..."


Comments?

edit: Make it "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" please.

[FIREWALL]

Why not. Every other swingin dick seems to be trying to get them. Why
shouldn't the UK help keep the peace over there.

[HunterICX]

Why not. Every other swingin dick seems to be trying to get them. Why
shouldn't the UK help keep the peace over there.

mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country.
no-one needs one....this nuke fest all over the world is just showing how big the country's pr*ck is.

[Kpt. Kozloff]

There is a chance that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will stop the developement of a Trident replacement (legality issue). All in all, cold war is over.

[STEED]

We should be armed to the teeth with nukes more so now the cold war is over the hot war has started.

[melnibonian]

In an ideal world I would say No. In the world that we live in unfortunatelly they have no option but to have nuclear weapons. Obviously they are totally useless as the UK will never use them, but they are needed to provide the fake idea of a Great Power. Against Russia or China having nuclear weapons make sence as that way you maintain some sort of ballance. But against "failed states" and all those people who would most probably use them at some point against the west they are totally useless. The reason is that even if Ossama did use nukes against us there is nothing we can actually do. It's sad and frustrating but it's the truth. In an asymmetric war (like the one we found ourselves in) weapons like these will harm us more than the "enemy".

[SUBMAN1]

Why not. Every other swingin dick seems to be trying to get them. Why
shouldn't the UK help keep the peace over there.
mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country.
no-one needs one....this nuke fest all over the world is just showing how big the country's pr*ck is.
Yep, we don't need cars airplanes, guns, bombs, subs, nothing. But guess what? It has nothing to do with how big a countries ***** is. It has only to do with the age old addage - Guns vs. butter. In a perfect world, you don't need nukes - but our world will never be perfect. You can hug all the trees you want, but it all comes down to the fact that your enemies will build that nuke, and use it to intimidate you and eventually take over your country. So in reality, yes you need the nuke. Welcome to the real world I guess.

Guess what? It will get better soon! Anti-Matter bombs are on the way that will make nukes look like a 500 lbs bomb for comparrison purposes! And on top of that, you will get your nanotech miniture robots that will have the capability to destroy every last man woman and child on the planet 50 times over and have this power contained in a suitcase. Welcome to your world. Nukes are the least of your worries - a neccesary evil per say.

-S

PS. Don't assume your worlds cold war is over. The world is in an even more precarious position for accidental nuke launch than ever before - and that is right now!

[Torpedo Fodder]

mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country.

Sure you can: A country that has been cleansed with nuclear fire will be a very peaceful place indeed :smug:.

Seriuosly though, the threat of such a thing happening can enforce peace, especially if both adversarial powers have nuclear weapons. That's probably the main reason the Cold War ended in a Mexican standoff rather than World War III.

[FIREWALL]

mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country.

Sure you can: A country that has been cleansed with nuclear fire will be a very peaceful place indeed :smug:.

Seriuosly though, the threat of such a thing happening can enforce peace, especially if both adversarial powers have nuclear weapons. That's probably the main reason the Cold War ended in a Mexican standoff rather than World War III.

I'm not going to add any thing to this discussion anymore but to say,
the very last sentence in your sig say's it all. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country.
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/5209/zuzik09ig4.jpg

[STEED]

Clever AL. ;)

[bradclark1]

Always keep a nuke and a means of delivery handy. Just having them serves a purpose. Especially in the coming decade. :yep:
Silver birds from the east in 2012 anybody? :know:

[Penelope_Grey]

mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country. http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/5209/zuzik09ig4.jpg

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.

[bradclark1]

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.
The end result is the same.

[melnibonian]

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.
Very Well Said :yep: :up:

[melnibonian]

The end result is the same.
Not really. In the first case you plant the seeds of future conflicts in the other you use the opportunity to work with the defeted nation towards a more secure future (for both). This is a trully big difference

[The Avon Lady]

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.
Why don't you tell us what the relevance of "created" versus "forced" was vis a vis WWII.

[The Avon Lady]

The end result is the same.
Not really. In the first case you plant the seeds of future conflicts in the other you use the opportunity to work with the defeted nation towards a more secure future (for both). This is a trully big difference
I don't get it.

Do you envision Japan crafting future retaliation conflicts against the US?

And which country was it that nurtured Japan back to health after the Japanese were "forced" to make peace?

[melnibonian]

I don't get it.

Do you envision Japan crafting future retaliation conflicts against the US?

And which country was it that nurtured Japan back to health after the Japanese were "forced" to make peace?
Everything depends on respect. When the Second World War finished the USA followed a different model in the management of peace in comparison with the model France and Great Britain followed after the First World War. The whole idea was in helping the defeted nations to stand tall again and feel they are equals (well almost at least) with the victors. I was not talking about Japan in my previous messages. What I meant was that in today's world using nuclear weapons or even heavy handed tactics can lead to "messy" situations where military powerfull nations cannot inforce the peace they wish. Examples can be found in Iraq, Afghanistan and unfortunatelly Israel and the rest of the Arab States in the region. I'm sorry if I missled you with my previous statements.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't get it.

Do you envision Japan crafting future retaliation conflicts against the US?

And which country was it that nurtured Japan back to health after the Japanese were "forced" to make peace?
Everything depends on respect. When the Second World War finished the USA followed a different model in the management of peace in comparison with the model France and Great Britain followed after the First World War. The whole idea was in helping the defeted nations to stand tall again and feel they are equals (well almost at least) with the victors. I was not talking about Japan in my previous messages. What I meant was that in today's world using nuclear weapons or even heavy handed tactics can lead to "messy" situations where military powerfull nations cannot inforce the peace they wish. Examples can be found in Iraq, Afghanistan and unfortunatelly Israel and the rest of the Arab States in the region. I'm sorry if I missled you with my previous statements.
How does any of this rebut the point that nukes were used and did create peace, which is what we were discussing?

[Oberon]

Definately, we should definately have a nuclear arm...

Now...I'm not a major fan of nukes...the whole thought of the buggers gives me the shivers, but...we shouldn't have rely on others for our strategic deterrant...we are a small island nation, we can defend ourselves conventially against conventional force...but aside from ABMs (which we don't yet have) the only way to prevent nuclear destruction is the capability to launch a retalliation on the country which launched on you....MAD...Mutually Assured Destruction.

Admittedly, having ICBMs isn't going to prevent a CBN attack by Bin and co, who are Britains main and closest threat at the moment (well...unless you count Brussells or Westminster ;) ) as nuclear weapons are a strategic weapon, not particularly a tactical one (although Tac nukes do exist, obviously...but not the ICBM types....and I'm not 100% sure the UK has Tactical nukes...I think they went the same way as the Vulcan...)

[melnibonian]

How does any of this rebut the point that nukes were used and did create peace, which is what we were discussing?
Well I don't really agree with you. When nuclear weapons were used they did not create peace. They just saved precious american lives. Japan was either way up for total surrender and nothing could have saved her. The Bombs did speed up the end of the war but did not contibute to the outcome. That's why I do not agree with the idea that nukes were used and brought peace.

[waste gate]

I am not one to get involved in the internal politics of another nation so I will not do so now. The people of Britain through their freely elected representatives will do that. That being said, I have a take on nuclear weapons.

Following the US use of atomic weapons on Japan, ending WWII, and the development of thermo-nuclear packages, there has been a debate as to their further development and usefulness as a weapon. Strictly speaking, as a tactical weapon nuclear bombs are of little or no value. The destruction, loss of human life and denial of territory make their logical use in tactical warfare nonexistent.

Strategic, also known as existential warfare, is another story entirely. During the so called ‘Cold War’ each side knew that the use of nuclear arms would lead to the destruction of the other, also known as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). During the ‘Cold War’ both sides endeavored to reduce the threat of total destruction through treaties and rhetoric. Although many fought to minimize the threat to both sides through propaganda (Doomsday Clock) and proxy wars (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and others on the African Continent), nuclear weapons did not cease to exist. The acceptance of nuclear weapons must exist because nuclear weapons exist and the technology to make them will not be forgotten……….one cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

As nuclear weapons exist today, as they did during the ‘Cold War’, are existential in nature. That is, if the existence of a nation as a people, culture, and civilization is in jeopardy, that nations nuclear weapons can and ultimately will ensure its survival.

[Skybird]

"Should Britain have nukes?"

Should Europe have nukes?

100% yes.

So Britain should have nukes.

France as well.

I would like to see other European core-nations, especially Germany, guaranteeing a certain nuclear deterrant as well.

That Britain even debates about the question, is no good sign.

On the other hand: should European nations that within the next decades will be more and more influenced by Islam should have nukes...?!?!? After the Lebanon war last year Italy and France had nothing better to do than to deliver most modern european SAMs to Lebanese army. But Hezbollah does not operate combat planes, only spy drones. And knowing that or not: equipping the Lebanese army with these weapons means to equip Hezbollah with them as well. Hezbollah may not operatecombat planes - but it knows somebody who does, and that is it'S archenemy. While Europe does not seem to be aware, that Europeans also operate european combat planes with European pilots aboard... But doesn't that mean that... BINGO!

So the question is valid: should European nations that within the next decades will fall victim to more and more Muhammedan influence should have nukes - if they already helpt to arm Muhammedan "extremisms" (what should that be?) right now, and have funded terror organisations there for years? Maybe we should start to shoot down our own airplanes instead, and wage a NATO war against Israel. That way, the thing would be much clearer and easier to understand.

[ASWnut101]

There is a chance that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will stop the developement of a Trident replacement (legality issue). All in all, cold war is over.


Someone (Kozloff) apparently never read the treaty.:roll:


Time for a school lesson:


No where does it say that a already nuclear state/country cannot develop or research more nuclear weapons. Read ALL of it in this link provided:


---> LINK (http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html) <---


School's out.

[dean_acheson]

True.

Was this a true or false question?

[ASWnut101]

True.

Was this a true or false question?


Huh?

[Happy Times]

As before, you can have your nukes if we can too:smug:
The fact is Finland is living in a neigbourhood that isnt safe if a big conflict arises.
The Kola peninsula, Northern Fleet, St Petersburg, Baltic Fleet, oil terminals at Vyborg, gas pipe going through Gulf of Finland to Europe.
These are all within 20-200km behind our 1500km long Eastern border!
Major build of forces starting in the Leningrad military district.
We are not in NATO and i dont think theres any sense in joining.
The allies wouldnt have anything to send here, do you see anyone of your countries sending troops and dying for Finland?
We could get exterminated as a nation and ethnicity being the NATO outpost.
Maybe someone would make a poem afterwards.:roll:

[fatty]

MAD worked great under bilateral circumstances like we had in the Cold War. Sadly now every Joe Dictator wants a slice of the nuclear pie. Going nuclear deters foreign intervention, which means you can gas your people or pick on your neighbours and the world powers must think long and hard before getting involved.

I believe as BMD makes progress that nukes for liberal democracies like the UK aren't as important. Reduce stockpiles as long as BMD is becoming more reliable/being implemented. If ABM ever becomes reliable enough to completely defeat a large-scale attack (which I am admittedly pessimistic of) then perhaps countries like the UK won't need nukes; eliminate the first strike threat, and you don't need second strike potential beyond conventional means.

[Skybird]

We could get exterminated as a nation and ethnicity being the NATO outpost.
Maybe someone would make a poem afterwards.:roll:

Your wish is my command :smug:


There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white;

Robins will wear their feathery fire,
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

Sara Teasdale

Hope it fits your mood... I red it first when I was a juvenile in the 80s: Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles.

One of my favourite authors.

[Happy Times]

You bring tears to a Finnish mans eyes..;)

Good poem.

[kiwi_2005]

ahh i thought britain always had nukes:oops:

:damn:

[Tchocky]

There will come soft rains

Wonderful poem and short story

[kiwi_2005]

Bob Dylan - Masters of War
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

---> LINK (http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html) <---


School's out.

Actually, the NPT does say in Article VI that in exchange for everyone else not trying to build nukes of their own:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Of course, the treaty gives no firm timetable, but all 5 powers are basically dragging thier heels as best as they can on the subject. The treaty is written so that technically they can't violate the treaty, but I doubt any reasonable interpreter can say that they are actually complying with it.

[Gizzmoe]

I´ve moved the "Germany in WW2" discussion here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107107

If you guys keep on derailing threads I´ll get angry. Start a new thread if you wanna discuss things that don´t belong in a thread. Thanks!

[ASWnut101]

---> LINK (http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html) <---


School's out.

Actually, the NPT does say in Article VI that in exchange for everyone else not trying to build nukes of their own:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Of course, the treaty gives no firm timetable, but all 5 powers are basically dragging thier heels as best as they can on the subject. The treaty is written so that technically they can't violate the treaty, but I doubt any reasonable interpreter can say that they are actually complying with it.

It still dosen't say that we can't build them. It just says that we are to pursue negotiations relating to a disarmament, but no negotiations have (or ever will) sucessfully taken place. We can still build them. Because none have ever come into place for cessation of nukes, we still can.