Should Britain have nukes? (article)
 

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.

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.

Should britain have nukes?
 

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.

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

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".

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!

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:

Clever AL. ;)

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:

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

The end result is the same.

Very Well Said :yep: :up: