Trident?

[Matblack]

Does the UK need a nuclear deterent?

Right now the argument the government is using to justify the keep of Trident is this

Mr Blair said although the Cold War had ended the UK needed nuclear weapons as no-one could be sure another nuclear threat would not emerge in the future.

He also said "it is not utterly fanciful" to "imagine states sponsoring nuclear terrorism from their soil".

We are all pretty aware that any country developing a nuclear arsenal and delivery system would feel the wrath of the USA before it produces anything which could get a few hundred miles off its territory (the producers not the USA).

So we have to assume that what we are being told is that we need to be able to react to locally delivered terrorism (suicide bombs) by unleashing nuclear hell on a country which we deem to have 'sponsored' the terrorists. Given our track record on which country is doing what (so Sadam has nukes?) can we justify having this capability, let alone spending £10-25Bn on a new version?

Your ideas are welcome

MB

[Haly]

I think we're providing a crap and hypocritical example, as we keep them yet keep stating that other countries shouldn't have any nuclear weapons because we've deemed them too unstable to be allowed them.
Who are we to decide what other countries are allowed to do? I'm sure we wouldn't be very happy if other countries pressurised us to do the same (Unless it was the US knowing what Blair's like )

I'd also say our main concern would be smaller acts of terrorism rather than anything nuclear, and it'd be just a tiny bit of overkill to need nuclear weapons to deal with terrorists imo.

[Rich_L]

I think yes, a nuclear capability is required simply because it's the kind of thing where if (heaven forbid) it was needed then it's not something you can conjure up immediately. Despite the current geo-political situation where it may be hard to envisage any use things can change and maintaining a credible nuclear capability is important.

Perhaps part of it is not placing too much faith in current arrangements and treaties in the event of a nuclear attack - would our allied countries actually follow through with the threat of MAD knowing that it may invoke a nuclear strike on their own population? I think in that scenario there is a distinct possibility that long-standing treaties go out of the window in the face of a nation that has showed it is willing to use it's capability in an offensive manner.

So yes, I think it is necessary, not necessarily for the reasons given by the government, but to ensure future long-term security.

[Stan_Lite]

As long as other "less stable" nations have the capability to produce and use nuclear weapons, there is justification for others to have them as a deterrent to their use.

I would question, however, the need for individual countries like the USA and the UK (amongst others) to stockpile their own.

I would propose a NATO/UN stock of nukes deployed in various strategic locations in member countries throughout the world. These weapons would be under the control of these organisations and only used (either fired or as a threat) with the agreement of the security council.

This would avoid any one country taking it upon themselves to react in a potentially catastrophic manner. It would also spread the cost, rather than a few countries having to foot enormous bills to maintain a nuclear capability.

Stan

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Rich_L

I think yes, a nuclear capability is required simply because it's the kind of thing where if (heaven forbid) it was needed then it's not something you can conjure up immediately. Despite the current geo-political situation where it may be hard to envisage any use things can change and maintaining a credible nuclear capability is important.

Perhaps part of it is not placing too much faith in current arrangements and treaties in the event of a nuclear attack - would our allied countries actually follow through with the threat of MAD knowing that it may invoke a nuclear strike on their own population? I think in that scenario there is a distinct possibility that long-standing treaties go out of the window in the face of a nation that has showed it is willing to use it's capability in an offensive manner.

So yes, I think it is necessary, not necessarily for the reasons given by the government, but to ensure future long-term security.

I'm not sure about MAD, especially in the current world senario, we are such a small country that five or ten nuclear missiles could destroy our country. Our respose would be to destroy the other country. Probably in the process sparking off a global war because of encroachment and damage to other soverign nations. It is widely believed that the use of nukes pretty much anywhere will result in ELE so whats the point?

Nukes are only a deterent on the surface, in reality all they are is a money pit.

MB

[Haly]

Originally Posted by Bijstan

I would propose a NATO/UN stock of nukes deployed in various strategic locations in member countries throughout the world. These weapons would be under the control of these organisations and only used (either fired or as a threat) with the agreement of the security council.

This would avoid any one country taking it upon themselves to react in a potentially catastrophic manner. It would also spread the cost, rather than a few countries having to foot enormous bills to maintain a nuclear capability.

Now that sounds like a better plan to me. Seems better controlled. Not that it'd ever happen probably, doubt they'd all be able to come to agreement over it.

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Haly

Now that sounds like a better plan to me. Seems better controlled. Not that it'd ever happen probably, doubt they'd all be able to come to agreement over it.

They never would

If nukes were ever used you face massive repercussions, as was seen with Chernobyl radioactive fall out is no respecter of land boundries, anyone who threw a nuke at Southern Ireland for example is effectively declearing war on the UK because of the damage they would be doing to us in the process. I believe this is the spark which starts a fire which destroys the world.

The ONLY way I can see MAD working now is that in the case of war a small number of nuclear powers have the ability NOT to defend themselves but to push the button on THE WORLD effectively ending life on the planet not repressing an enemy.

MB

[Rich_L]

Originally Posted by Matblack

I'm not sure about MAD, especially in the current world senario, we are such a small country that five or ten nuclear missiles could destroy our country. Our respose would be to destroy the other country. Probably in the process sparking off a global war because of encroachment and damage to other soverign nations. It is widely believed that the use of nukes pretty much anywhere will result in ELE so whats the point?

Quite simply I disagree with the perception that the use of nukes will result in ELE - certainly the use of nuclear weaponry on another nuclear-armed nation would result in the mutual annihilation of both nations but I feel that the remaining nations would be forced to take an entirely pragmatic view and deal with the consequences rather than engage in global nuclear warfare resulting in total destruction. At the end of the day treaties only mean so much - how much would countries actually be willing to sacrifice to come to the aid of another nation? I think the days of countries throwing their men into battle to assist another (such as WWI, WWII) are long gone and countries would take a more selfish pragmatic view.

Originally Posted by Haly

Now that sounds like a better plan to me. Seems better controlled. Not that it'd ever happen probably, doubt they'd all be able to come to agreement over it.

The problem there being that how much faith would you have in NATO/the UN/whatever global body was in charge of the weaponry of actually following through on it's threat? If the UK came under attack could we be guaranteed that our allies would agree to use a nuclear strike, or would we be cast-off and the new, attacking nation be accepted into the fold?

For example, China decided to mount a non-WMD assisted invasion of Japan - with the threat that if anyone else got involved they would be subject to nuclear attack - could we guarantee that we would still assist with the prospect of nuclear attack? Or would we take a more pragmatic view and let them fight it out, then deal with the new China-Japan nation or whatever it ended up.

Whilst our situation is slightly different in terms of who could feasibly invade, I think the principle of maintaining an independently controlled nuclear deterrent is still sound.

[Will]

I don't see the point. We already have nuclear subs and other such deterrents. why spend so much money on it. We don't need it - or at least don't need any more.

Is having a nuclear arsenal really a deterrent I wonder? Frankly if any nation drops a nuke on anyone the world is pretty much over - I would hope that we do not respond by launching a nuclear retaliation. World opinion and commerce would shut down within the attacking nation for a start (one would hope) - it's just a big stalemate at the moment. They serve no purpose at all. Why decimate a country and effectively our world but destroying a country and going for an eye for an eye? If none of us had nukes, there wouldn't be this fear. Furthermore, if only a few infadel countries did, well I don't think they'd be crazy enough to use them frankly.

It's all political and psychological. If none of the superpowers had nukes, and people like Iran and so on did, there would be huge international pressure for them to get rid of them. If they, godforbid, did use them against a nation, there would be a lot more sanctions available, and power to NATO for doing something about it in a economic, socio-political manner that would probably be more crippling.

Nuclear weaponary will lead us to our demise.

[Admiral Huddy]

You can't tell me that the US and UK don't have them already. I'm sorry but I've never believed for one minute that they ever disarmed. Not al the time their is a threat from middle eastern countries and the far east (NK for example)

What annoys me is that the US is so concerned over how other countries choose to defend themselves. So a middle eastern country is invaded because of it posses a threat to western civilisation and world because they choose to defend themselves with nuclear deterent yet they themselves can? Doesn't really make sense. Besides, I thought that both India and Pakistan had an arsenal of nukes already, yet there has been no intervention from the US there.. has there?

I'm not sure what sort of message this sends out to the rest of the world. Would they be thinking that every country has a right. Is the UK defying the US? Why would they be doing that? One thing for sure, it means that the incident in North Korea is now not a valid arguement. How can it be if the UK is doing the same thing.

The only thing a nuclear arsenal will achieve is a world wide stand-off.