Should The Uk Disarm Its Nuclear Weapons?

[Kromovaracun]

This isn't strictly topical or regarding a particular story, but nobody reads current affairs or politics, so thought I'd post the question here.

Given the amount that the UK government spends on nuclear weapons, does it make sense to disarm? Can anyone tell me any clear "pros" they see that come from owning them?

The best argument I can think of is that it justifies our position on the UN Security Council and thus our ability to influence world affairs - however our prominence there seems like something of an anachronism today and only ever seems to get us involved in costly military ventures.

Alternatively, there's the "safety" argument which David Cameron used in the last election - i.e. "we might need them later." Can anyone here imagine a threat to the UK which would be neutralised effectively by nucear weapons? Because I'm struggling.

[Zacs-Master]

No Kromo I can't either. I think we're too far down the line of standing in the playground comparing our catapults for that. I would love us to take a stand and get rid but I think all our Governments may be under a bit of pressure from our cousins over the pond.

[emmie]

no we shouldn't disarm, the main reason is that we are better off with than without, it is a show of strength, even if it's never used, USA would never dream of doing so i am sure, and she wouldn't want her partners, and we are still an ally, to look like we don't have any firepower, protection, or capability on supporting our allies come a war, i am well aware that a nuclear war could be our last, but i can't really see us giving up any day soon

[emmie]

its rather like an invisible line across which one does not cross for fear of the unknown, not sure i can explain that better, but perhaps you get the gist.

[Brenden]

No, and it would be naive to think that every country in the world would disarm its nuclear weapons -

[Zacs-Master]

I don't think that's part of the question^^^

[emmie]

but it should be, after all we lose all our weapons and then what, would we really think that others countries would do the same, no chance.

[Kromovaracun]

" it is a show of strength, even if it's never used"

I was following you up until here, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - what are the things that we gain from a display of strength?

"it would be naive to think that every country in the world would disarm its nuclear weapons"

Sure. But why would we need everyone to? The position of not having nuclear weapons when a select group of powers does is the default position of most other European countries.

[Zacs-Master]

I don't think that's part of the question either. It's not about taking the moral high ground and using it to persuade other countries to do the same. Let's face it, if there's a nuclear war we're all screwed and whether we have an arsenal or not won't make a blind bit if difference

[Kromovaracun]

(to clarify, I understand that not everyone else would. I just don't think that's a situation to be particularly scared of - it's the standard one for most countries in the world.)

[andy-hughes]

I can see an argument for keeping what we have, but no justification what ever for the continual upgrading at immoral expense.

Can we really justify a nine-figure pay out every few years just so we can obliterate another country just that little bit quicker?

I know weapons are more sophisticated, but let's face it, something of ours would get through, and if it didn't, it's not like we will be around to complain to the manufacturers is it!

[Zacs-Master]

My answer was to emmie.

[Zacs-Master]

Exactly Andy

[baza]

disarm and spend the money saved on NHS pen pushers, not really, as we were a world power we need the weapons to maintain our position on the UN security council. I would like to see ALL nuclear weapons neutralised but I can't see it happening in my lifetime.

[mikey4444]

I agree with Zacs here. Nuclear weapons are a complete anachronism these days, when the real danger to us all is terrorism. Having the Bomb doesn't protect us from the crazy zealots with the backpack on the Tube.

Also it is rather hypocritical of us to stand in judgement of countries like Iran, Israel, Pakistan, etc when we hang on to our own weapons.

A huge benefit of giving up our nuclear weapons would be to save us billions of pounds in the future, which is going to be needed to replace Trident.

Exactly what is the point of having these weapons, when they can never be used ? Canada, Germany, and 100's of other countries seem to manage very well without them, and so could we.

A huge vote winner for any Party, who will pledge the demise of these things !

To answer your question directly Kromo...no I can't think of a threat either.
Russia was only a threat because we let the Americans use us as a huge deployment facility, moored off the coast of Europe. Why would Russia ever invade Britain ? We were conned for years by that one.

[Kromovaracun]

"I can see an argument for keeping what we have"

I agree with the rest of your post, Andy, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this. What do you think is the best argument for sustaining a nuclear arsenal of any kind?

[LazyGun]

I think Kromo has the right of it here. Our nuclear weapons arsenal is there to justify our occupation of one of the 5 permanent seats on the UN security council, and give the Navy a bit a prestige. Its costly, I cannot imagine a scenario where we would ever authorise a first strike, especially not without the US say so, and to be honest I really cannot envision and all out nuclear war anymore.

They have become an expensive anachronism, and, because they allow us to sit at that "top table" mean that we get dragged into various foreign military adventures that are of dubious provenance - at tremendous costs to us in terms of young lives lost and, to be blunt, money.

Nor can I envision any scenario where, if we were to disarm, we would then be faced with the threat of imminent military invasion or nuclear threat.

Really and truly the money would be far better off spent elsewhere.Investing in upgrading the conventional armaments perhaps.Maybe even affording some planes for the aircraft carrier or 2 that we have.

Front line medical treatment, perhaps. More social housing maybe?

[mikey4444]

I have found this on the Guardian website, concerning the cost of replacing Trident. Its a bit out of date but gives a very good flavour of the HUGE benefit to Britain, if we abandoned the program to replace Trident.

£130 billion !

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed

Whats not to like !

[Gromit]

We need to be able to defend ourselves against rogue nations such as Ethiopia, Somalia and Chad.

They might blow us us with improvised roadside devices, so we must be able to retaliate with thousand mega ton nuclear weapons.

Otherwise, they will walk all over us.

[ludwig]

We should probably disarm them but not tell anyone. That way we've still got the deterrent but without the expense.

[andy-hughes]

Kromo - I confess myself on the horns of a dilemma here.

As I see it, nuclear weapons proliferated in an age when politicians were pretty cavalier about engaging in immorally expensive pissing contests - especially America and Russia.

Now, as Call-Me-Dave has found out, a much greater degree of common sense and diplomacy exists, with people less trigger-happy than in the days of the Cold War.

But - the nuclear threat / deterrent is something we have inherited, and I feel that to abandon all nuclear weapons would send out an improper message - that we are here for the taking.

I hope the world will edge towards a time when such dreadful technology is seen for abomination it is, and abandoned altogether, but I feel a move by one of the super powers would be needed as an example.

I certainly don't see it happening in my lifetime - although the new Iranian PM seems to have the right idea - get rid of the damned things.