case against UK nuclear deterrence

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

Previous topic | Next topic

Question14
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 164

15 Feb 2013, 3:21 am

A nuclear war is not a Just war.

If anything I too want disarment. Trouble being is getting it to happen.

_________________
so...

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2013, 9:28 am

ScrewyWabbit wrote:

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.

Use submarines manned by crews from all countries.

minervx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

05 Mar 2013, 7:21 pm

thomas81 wrote:

minervx wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is conducive to peace.

Can you name one country with a nuclear weapon that was invaded by another country with a nuclear weapon?

by that logic, North Korea having nuclear weapons makes peace between the USA and North Korea more likely.

That further proves my point. However, I believe dictatorships shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

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

05 Mar 2013, 7:24 pm

minervx wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

minervx wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is conducive to peace.

Can you name one country with a nuclear weapon that was invaded by another country with a nuclear weapon?

by that logic, North Korea having nuclear weapons makes peace between the USA and North Korea more likely.

That further proves my point. However, I believe dictatorships shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Sorry, i can't decipher any sense from that. You contradicted yourself in 2 sentences.

you subscribe to the premise that NK having nukes makes peace more likely but on the other hand you dont want them to have nukes?

So what, you want war to be more likely and for NK's enemies to have the higher ground?

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Mar 2013, 8:20 am

If the French have them, the British will have them.

And that's that.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

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

06 Mar 2013, 11:02 am

simon_says wrote:

If the French have them, the British will have them.

And that's that.

that is somewhat petty. Culturally, the English and French have been less than amicable but to talk in terms of a arms race between the two is childish.

My view is that the UK's nuclear capability is nothing more than a throbbing hangover of its colonial days and a straw clutching project to mantain its status as a world empire. It has no use or political leverage. It an enormous mis-prioritised white elephant that needs scrapping.

Meanwhile, while the politicians play at Risk, the rest of us languish below the breadline, or are waiting months to be housed or recieve life saving operations. Sort this out first! Big missiles afterwards!

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Mar 2013, 5:52 pm

I'm not suggesting it's an arms race. Maybe a pride race. It's childish to assume I meant anything else. Calm down.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Mar 2013, 10:21 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:

So I do think that there is some value in having nuclear weapons.

.

Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept the U.S. and Soviet Union from going to war for nearly 50 years.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

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

09 Mar 2013, 10:50 am

ruveyn wrote:

ScrewyWabbit wrote:

So I do think that there is some value in having nuclear weapons.

.

Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept the U.S. and Soviet Union from going to war for nearly 50 years.

M.A.D. only works when you have a nuclear rival to go into a M.A.D. relationship with. The UK has not.

If you want to argue for M.A.D. it makes sense for Iran to have nuclear weapons to counterbalance Israel's arsenal.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Mar 2013, 11:38 am

thomas81 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

ScrewyWabbit wrote:

So I do think that there is some value in having nuclear weapons.

.

Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept the U.S. and Soviet Union from going to war for nearly 50 years.

It makes even more sense to convert Iran into a p;arking lot. Overnight. For which they should thank us. Think of all those Muslin Bucks we could send to keep their date with their 70 dark eyed virgins.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 10 Mar 2013, 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ICY
Pileated woodpecker

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

09 Mar 2013, 1:31 pm

thomas81 wrote:

M.A.D. only works when you have a nuclear rival to go into a M.A.D. relationship with. The UK has not.

M.A.D. doesn't need to involve only two countries to be valid. There has never been a total war between nations with nuclear weapons, for example the wars between India and Pakistan.

Right now the UK has no major international disputes with major powers but hat could change. Russia could start to use its nature resources to pressure other nations, and China could start to threaten international shipping in the South China Sea. In the event of a major dispute between ourselves and either of these countries, Trident would be our insurance against major war because of M.A.D.

glow
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,484
Location: England

10 Mar 2013, 8:29 pm

so..bring back the criminal injustice of war first and surrender our nation to the holy land?

what should be done is not getting the exact results required within a set trial period.

starve a war of its own deternt and we'll all be wearing running shoes in the run up to 2015.

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

Jump to:

case against UK nuclear deterrence Post Reply New Topic

case against UK nuclear deterrence