Should Britain have nukes? (article)

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by 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.

Someone (Kozloff) apparently never read the treaty.


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 <---


School's out.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

---> LINK <---


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.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

[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.