I was just wondering what people's views on the current debate on upgrading Britain's arsenal of nuclear weapons were.
I think that, whilst arguments can be made that, to ensure our general safety on a global scale, we require a nuclear deterrent, i think that it is wrong on a basic level to preach global safety and to bar other nations from having nuclear weapons and then to create some ourselves. And whilst people say that we would never use them and that they are only for safety, and we are on the side of the 'good guys', it is, i think, worth remembering that the U.S.A (the good guys, remember) are the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation, and that aside from this little blip, the U.S and Israel (the other good ones) are the only countries to ever threaten to use nuclear weapons, with america threatening to nuke China in the 50's if they didnt withdraw to the 18th parallel in korea, and israel threatening to nuke damascus, beirut, jeddah and cairo if the americans didnt rearm them when they were orginially losing the 6 day war against the arabs, and let us not forget the israeli spy who was jailed in the 90's for exposing their secrets told the newsmen about operation samson, a last ditch attempt to save themselves if the war with the arabs should ever go ill, which as far as i remember involves launching nuclear weapons at ever major arab city in the middle east. To have the only countries who would threaten an apocalypse to save their own skins as allies and then to say that other nations arent allowed o have nukes when we are wanting to make more is hypocrytical and almost laughable in my opinion. If we were to say that we are a truly peaceful nation then we would give up our nuclear weapons as an example to others and then we would actually have some weight to our arguments and pleas for others to disarm.
Aside from these points of war, the environmental cost to testing new nuclear weapons is so astronomical that it begs the question of 'is it really worth it'? Let us not forget that the test sites for the french, american, british, pakistani, russian and indian nuclear weapons are still no go areas that have destroyed any nature around them and caused untold damage to the atmosphere and surrounding areas.
Was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on these matters.
__________________
Mrs Doyle: I have cake!
Father Ted: No thanks, Mrs Doyle.
Mrs Doyle: Are you sure, Father? They've got cocaine in em!
Father Ted: WHAT?
Mrs Doyle: Oh, no, not cocaine. God, what am I on about. No, what d'you call them. Raisins.
Ok, firstly, Britain clearly does not think of itself as a peaceful nation, hence the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're a nation who are prepared to stand up internationally for freedom and democracy etc. and to stand up against terrorism and states governed by dangerous people/regimes.
Britain isn't being hypocritical when we say that other people can't have nukes, as we're a democratically run, free, developed country, and as patronising as it may be, we have no problem saying that we can be trused not to misuse nuclear weapons in the way that other countries might. We have adequate and safe infastructure, we have security which means they aren't going to be stolen or misused by rouge individuals. We also have a stable government, which means there's no chance of our country being taken over by a fanatical dictator, or religious extremists, which is already the case in many countries. The reason we don't want countries like Iran having nukes is because the country is unstable, and we doing trust it's fanacitically religious government not to use such weapons in a campaign against the west.
The reason we still need trident is because we do still need a deterrent against nuclear attacks (beacuse that's what they are) , its all very well saying that we'll disband or nuclear program, but other countries certainly have no intention of doing so, they only want to increase nuclear stockpiles. Without a deterrent we could become vulnerable to this countries in the future, and whilst we are safe now, we can't discount the possibility that we will need a nuclear deterrent in the future.
Plus taking out our deterrent would make us even more dependent on America for protection should a time come when we need it. We don't have a large enough military to support ourselves so we already need their help in any military operation we wish to undertake, taking out trident would only make us more depedent on them for protection, meaning we'd be more indebtted to them and more obliged to continue aiding them in whatever military projects they fancy starting.
hear hear, that was a point well made Adam i am in total agreement that the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is the right thing to do i may not be ideal but it is a fact of life in this day and age with an increasing threat to our countries security. i would just like to point out that we do not actually own the trident missiles. we lease them from America. they are designed and made in America and they are kept on an American air base in Britain.
__________________
don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
