Would you think it is relevant for the UK to still hold Nuclear weapons after 2012 ? The argument for would I suppose be the attainment of nuclear by other nations, should it be a consideration.
I think we should stick to our committments to the Non Proliferation Treaty and scale back the stockpile of nuclear weapons until they are phased out completely. We don't have a leg to stand on to criticise Iran for breaching this treaty if we re-new Trident....
Yea, and the same goes for the US-especially the US. America has more 'weapons of mass destruction' than all other countries put together. I think it's literally a miracle that some terrible accident hasn't occurred with these things and wiped us all off the planet. There is almost no publicity given to the enormous amount of money that the major nuclear powers, particularly the US, spend to maintain these weapons and the forces that are associated with them. The sooner we get rid of the things, the better.
The query is would the public feel comfortable with countries of the Orient owning nuclear missiles whilst we don't, especially with us going to war with them.
Are we people who advocate carrying knives when out on the streets just in case some-one tries to mug you? When that happens, things spiral out of control and become even more aggressive.
I'm sure we're not on that personal level, but international defence is a different proposition. I'd love to see the dismantling of all atomic weapons but am also aware that wishes don't make dishes.
Japan is on the doorstep of North Korea and has stuck by its committments to the NPF not to develop nuclear weapons. Most industrialised states in Europe do not have nuclear weapons, including Germany, its largest economy. More to the point, North Korea tested a miniscule weapon and has no capability as yet of delivering it over any distance. This pales in comparison the the arsenal we, and particularly the Americans, keep, which has truly world-ending capacities....
The nuclear deterrent argument is a product of an age that has passed, it really is a nonsense. Are we really so scared? I'm not, and i could think of a million better uses for the money involved, frankly.
Hasn't it? With what? What country has ever said "we won't attack you because you have nuclear weapons"? I'm intrigued, cos i honestly don't know.
The balance of powers argument, which is a tenuous situation that may have some truth to it, is unique, I think, to the cold war, with two massive, roughly equivalent blocks. Where there is proliferation, where many countries come to possess nuclear weapons, there are far more factors to an already unstable equation. Most importantly, however, you increase the risk of weapons falling into terrorist hands, who have nothing to fear from a nuclear deterrant. Given that the main threat to western states now is not other states, but non-state actors, the nuclear deterrent is, I would say, largely irrelevant and counter productive....
It was the start anyway. An argument maybe for self ownership rather than dismantling. The current crisis is obviously but who would like to predict where we will be in another 6 years.
I would not say that's an argument for self-ownership. The more nuclear weapons in circulation, the more unstable the situation is. We need to lead by example and begin scaling back weapon stockpiles to encourage others to do so....
there's that "argument" word again. Sounds more like an opinion than a "fact". I'm certainly no authority, but the deterrent argument really did and does still sound like a fairly broad justification to spend masses of money on weaponry to me.
Are people aware how powerful Trident actually is? I can't remember the stats exactly - it was in the Guardian yesterday if anyone's got it hanging around. Each missile contains up to 8 warheads, each of which is something like ten times the power of the bomb dropped on hiroshima. Surely the international element, as opposed to the personal risk entailed in carrying a knive, only reinforces the CND argument - the issue involves thousands if not millions of human lives instead of you and a mugger.
Sorry about the unimaginative use of language. Yeah, I don't believe in facts on either side of this argument, nor many others if I think about it. Tis a horrible amount of money to spend on devices for death.
A truth, but could you wear then perhaps smaller devices, is the concept devoid of any justification ?
It seems that all the USA spend money on is war, i mean if you look at the amount of money spent on those nuclear missles and on the Iraq war. When new Orleans got flooded there were barely any hellicopters to rescue the poor survivers. Its seriously uncool!
