Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

case against UK nuclear deterrence

Page 3 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

12 Feb 2013, 4:55 pm

GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
war with Russia is the least likely. How long would it take for trident to get within launch range of beijing?

Zero seconds from London. Beijing is 8,161 kilometres from London, well within Trident II range... And good luck trying to shoot down 4-12 warheads per missile moving at Mach 17.

The more i know, I suppose. Would still be very reckless of britain to get into a position where such an action would be necessary. On that ground, i say scrap trident. Its only purpose is mindless revenge.

Like the new avatar, by the way. I couldnt help but read that in the voice of Rowan Atkinson.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

12 Feb 2013, 5:09 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Would still be very reckless of britain to get into a position where such an action would be necessary.

No argument here. And I'm pretty sure that cautionary approach applies to China as well...

All in all, I am not all that concerned about the Chinese rise to power and their nuclear arsenal. They have a good grasp on the concept of Realpolitik (unsurprisingly, as Sun Tzu invented the concept before the German language even existed). Their foreign policy isn't based on ideology, but on good old fashioned cynical selfishness. Much more easy to deal with.

Predictability is good, especially when it comes to weapons of mass destruction.

thomas81 wrote:
Like the new avatar, by the way. I couldn't help but read that in the voice of Rowan Atkinson.

Someone has to take a stand for British humour after they started censoring Fawlty Towers.



Razgriz
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 30

12 Feb 2013, 6:33 pm

Thomas, I think there is something you don't realize. You don't know that the UK will never get into a war with somebody else that has nuclear capabilities. Political climate can change in an instant, and how do you know that relations between countries are all that they appear? Personally, I would be quite surprised if there weren't times where there was almost nuclear war that the public doesn't know about, and not in the cold war either.

Your argument is that the UK doesn't need a nuclear deterrent because there isnt anyone with nuclear capabilities who would attack them. While that *might* be true right now, you have no way of knowing it will always be like that.


Now, idealistically, nuclear disarmament is the most sensible option, but in the practical world we live in, its the worst option. No nation with a nuclear arsenal will give it up, at least completely. because they know that no other nation will give it up either.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 162 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 46 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

13 Feb 2013, 8:47 am

Razgriz wrote:
Thomas, I think there is something you don't realize. You don't know that the UK will never get into a war with somebody else that has nuclear capabilities. Political climate can change in an instant, and how do you know that relations between countries are all that they appear? Personally, I would be quite surprised if there weren't times where there was almost nuclear war that the public doesn't know about, and not in the cold war either.

Your argument is that the UK doesn't need a nuclear deterrent because there isnt anyone with nuclear capabilities who would attack them. While that *might* be true right now, you have no way of knowing it will always be like that.


Now, idealistically, nuclear disarmament is the most sensible option, but in the practical world we live in, its the worst option. No nation with a nuclear arsenal will give it up, at least completely. because they know that no other nation will give it up either.


If it means having access to education, housing and medical care at point of demand frankly all of that is a risk I am willing to take.

The risk of becoming a nuclear target can be diminished by improving relations with countries that would otherwise target us. We have more chance of changing countries like Iran and North Korea for the better by compromising our gung ho attitude and by through cultivating mutual respect and understanding.

Moreover who do you think really benefits from all this expensive weaponry? Its not the general public, it is the companies who manufacture them that bankroll the ruling party of the day.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Feb 2013, 10:42 am

/\
You just don't get it, do you?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

13 Feb 2013, 12:07 pm

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
war with Russia is the least likely. How long would it take for trident to get within launch range of beijing?

Zero seconds from London. Beijing is 8,161 kilometres from London, well within Trident II range... And good luck trying to shoot down 4-12 warheads per missile moving at Mach 17.

The more i know, I suppose. Would still be very reckless of britain to get into a position where such an action would be necessary. On that ground, i say scrap trident. Its only purpose is mindless revenge.

Like the new avatar, by the way. I couldnt help but read that in the voice of Rowan Atkinson.


The purpose of mindless revenge isn't about the revenge, it's to make other countries reconsider attacking. If a nation was considering nuking the UK they would have to consider the destruction of their main cities, and they will most likely not attack (unless they were idiots).



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

13 Feb 2013, 12:56 pm

Raptor wrote:
/\
You just don't get it, do you?


Theres nothing else to 'get'.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

13 Feb 2013, 2:56 pm

I think we should have some sort of shared nuclear capacity with continental Europe. Even if that ended up being just France and Germany, we could save around 2/3rds of the cost by working together.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

13 Feb 2013, 2:58 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think we should have some sort of shared nuclear capacity with continental Europe. Even if that ended up being just France and Germany, we could save around 2/3rds of the cost by working together.


Economically, that would be a welcome half way house as the UK taxpayer wouldnt have to shoulder so much of the cost. In the event of an actual nuclear war it would also spread the liability. Still, the eurosceptics would whine about Paris or Brussels having their finger on the 'red button'.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

13 Feb 2013, 3:25 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think we should have some sort of shared nuclear capacity with continental Europe. Even if that ended up being just France and Germany, we could save around 2/3rds of the cost by working together.


I think that would be hugely unpopular in Germany, which doesn't have nukes of their own. I'm not German myself, but the Germans I met seemed very much opposed to anything nuclear.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

13 Feb 2013, 3:33 pm

The French actually try to be independent, its nuclear capability is part of that. Does Britain really try to be independent? I don't really think so.



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,158

13 Feb 2013, 3:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think we should have some sort of shared nuclear capacity with continental Europe. Even if that ended up being just France and Germany, we could save around 2/3rds of the cost by working together.


Practically, that would be very difficult to do. Who would physically control the weapons? Would it only require the OK of one country to use them, a majority of the countries, or all three of them? Would Germany, for instance, want to have Russia nuked in their name even though they dissented? What if a potential adversary believes that they can launch a limited strike on the UK and still have France and Germany unwilling to retaliate? That would leave the UK high and dry.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

13 Feb 2013, 3:50 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:

Practically, that would be very difficult to do. Who would physically control the weapons? Would it only require the OK of one country to use them, a majority of the countries, or all three of them? Would Germany, for instance, want to have Russia nuked in their name even though they dissented? What if a potential adversary believes that they can launch a limited strike on the UK and still have France and Germany unwilling to retaliate? That would leave the UK high and dry.


Every participating country should probably share the responsibility of storing the missiles. I think there would need to be a clear diplomatic agreement in advance on the rules of launch protocol between the nations ie: only as a retalitory means in the event of a preemptive agressor attack.

Frankly, I'd like to see it go farther than that. I want to see a combined European army, air force and navy. That way Britain couldn't follow America into every esculation it goes into with its nose up their backside.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,158

13 Feb 2013, 7:15 pm

thomas81 wrote:
ScrewyWabbit wrote:

Practically, that would be very difficult to do. Who would physically control the weapons? Would it only require the OK of one country to use them, a majority of the countries, or all three of them? Would Germany, for instance, want to have Russia nuked in their name even though they dissented? What if a potential adversary believes that they can launch a limited strike on the UK and still have France and Germany unwilling to retaliate? That would leave the UK high and dry.


Every participating country should probably share the responsibility of storing the missiles. I think there would need to be a clear diplomatic agreement in advance on the rules of launch protocol between the nations ie: only as a retalitory means in the event of a preemptive agressor attack.

Frankly, I'd like to see it go farther than that. I want to see a combined European army, air force and navy. That way Britain couldn't follow America into every esculation it goes into with its nose up their backside.


By the way, you may be interested to know, something like this was discussed before, but I don't think anything came of it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... -deterrent



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

13 Feb 2013, 7:19 pm

That was purely an Anglo-French proposal. I think something like this ought to include Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy etc


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 192
Location: Hertfordshire England

14 Feb 2013, 1:58 pm

thomas81 wrote:
ScrewyWabbit wrote:

Practically, that would be very difficult to do. Who would physically control the weapons? Would it only require the OK of one country to use them, a majority of the countries, or all three of them? Would Germany, for instance, want to have Russia nuked in their name even though they dissented? What if a potential adversary believes that they can launch a limited strike on the UK and still have France and Germany unwilling to retaliate? That would leave the UK high and dry.


Every participating country should probably share the responsibility of storing the missiles. I think there would need to be a clear diplomatic agreement in advance on the rules of launch protocol between the nations ie: only as a retalitory means in the event of a preemptive agressor attack.

Frankly, I'd like to see it go farther than that. I want to see a combined European army, air force and navy. That way Britain couldn't follow America into every esculation it goes into with its nose up their backside.


I doubt an EU army will exist anytime soon as defense policies are to different, would other EU states go to war for the Falklands for example. However greater cooperation between member states, such as between the UK and the French as well as the EU military instructors in Mali, will hopefully become more common.