Britain to get a nuclear weapons programme?

[AB Asks]

Nuclear weapons. A constant talking point in Britain over the past 50 years. Now it seems we are destined to have a �20 billion plan to create a Trident missile programme. Politicians say that we need the deterrent in today's uncertain world. Add to this that the Tories back the plans and it seems that we are likely to go ahead with the programme. Do you think that nuclear weapons are the answer to keeping Britain safe? Can the government justify spending that sort of money on nuclear weapons?

[Oneeyedvic]

There is little point in 'invading a country' after you have nuked it - nuking a country does tend to make a place ratehr unattractive.

So all a nuke is is a threat.

So lets say Iran has a nuke. It states that it will destroy Israel. What exactly do you think will happen - and what would the difference be if we had trident.?

[jump79]

Mrs T, please stop swearing & mind your spelling, thankyou.
Is it not obvious to you that USA is probably the only country using nukes as outright blackmail and bullying other countries to do as it pleases?
As for 'rogue' countries, how do you define that? Countries that don't grovel to the USA like UK, perhaps? I assume you are talking about Iran, so if Iran were to get nukes, how exactly would it be able to blackmail other ('nuke-less')countries? If there are 10 other countries that already have nukes, they will in turn, threaten it 10 to 1. Blackmail doesn't hold, end of story.

[WendyS]

Well, I'd rather the government spent �20 billion on replacing Trident than funding the 2012 Olympics.

[Loosehead]

sorry Jump don't see your reasoning, why would 10 countries come to the aid of a threatened nukeless country? Do you think France et al would come to our aid in such a situation? I think you know the answer!

Vic I believe a fantical islamic state would probably not hesitate to use nukes on Israel, they believe Allah is on their side, they are not bothered about the consequences. Have I misunderstood the mind set of them?

[Oneeyedvic]

Loosehead, well on the basis of your reasoning - I repeat: "what would the difference be if we have trident.? "

[kwicky]

Why have nukes which target the general population at large? I thought we have moved on from that. Take Iraq...the smart bombs were able to find there target within metres. The bombs were exploding in all of the ministry buildings leaving the population alone. They thought Saddam was holed up in some house and they targeted it with only a few casualties. Any future conflict would surely avoid innocent civilians and concentrate on bunker busting bombs. Using Trident would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[lector]

hi Loosehead ---

I read a broadsheet newspaper editorial at the time of the first Trident decision and I recall a statement that 'codes' had to go through a command centre in the USA ....

Its logical anyway that USA would want to control the technology ...

[Loosehead]

The main difference vic is that we would have the consolation of knowing that they would be obliterated too!

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry loosehead but they would be obliterated by America.

Again, what would be the difference if we don't have trident.

[Loosehead]

Why would the USA get involved? I don't see your reasoning vic. I mean you are always very fond of saying that the US don't give a toss about us and yet you now say they'd risk nuclear reprisals for us. Right oh!

The difference vic is that we would have no big stick of our own and would have to rely on the benevolence of another state. That's the difference if we don't have trident, or some other nuke system to ensure MAD. I can't make it any simpler!

[Loosehead]

Sorry vic, lost the thread a little you are of course referring to Israel.

Of course us having trident makes no difference to Israel. I was referring to the Iran/Irsael situatuin as an example of a rogue state scenario.

[Oneeyedvic]

Ok loose, so when will Trident be practical - give me a scenario where if WE don't have trident, we would be at a loss.

Also, at what point would you suggest that we use a nuke. How many times will a country be at war - millions of people will dies in the event of a nuclear explosion - and only hundreds in charge of a country would be ultimately responsible.

We have apparently gone into Iraq as it was a repressed country under a brutal dictator - surely we couldn't therefore use a nuke in a similar case even if that dictator used one against us - or are the civilians irrelevant?

[Loosehead]

I believe I described the reasons for nukes in several scenarios above. Essentailly they would only be there as a last resort when our way of life is threatened.

Do you accep;t the cold war situation? ie that the USSR would undoubtedly have invaded the rest of Europe with their overwhealming forces had it not been for MAD?

I stand by my original statement, "You need them so you don't need them"

[Oneeyedvic]

Firstly, our way of life threatened? We haven't been invaded since 1066 and its only in the last few years that we have had nukes.

So practicality wise - we have two options - one is that we as a country are invaded - and lets face it being an Island that is no easy task - or secondly, one of our allies or territories is invaded. As shown in the last few years, once one of our allies / territories is invaded, we won't even threaten the aggresor country with nukes - why not - because everyone knows its a hollow threat.

Why did we not nuke Iraq the first time round? Did having nukes stop Saddam from invading? Did he have weapons of mass destruction? If he had used them would we have used nukes?

As you state - we won't need them - and everyone knows we won't use them - so it is a complete waste of billions of pounds.

[Loosehead]

Do you accept that we needed them during the cold war?

[kwicky]

Loosehead:
The USA yes, the UK no, unless that is we posed just a token threat to Russia. Nobody in their right mind picks a fight with a super-power. It was interesting when the nuclear missile reductions took place Britain was not included in the talks between Regan and Gorbochov. Why do you think that was?

[Loosehead]

Because we only had a few, you only need a few, but why do you think the USSR did not just invade the rest of Europe?

[Oneeyedvic]

Because America had them. Nothing to do with the UK.

Again - why didn't we use nukes the first time Iraq invaded Kuwait - they had WMDs at the time and they were a rogue state!

[Loosehead]

Are you ignoring all my answres vic, I've answerd that about 5 times above,you're like a broken record. Let me spell it out. We'd use them when there our way of life is threatened and there is no alternative. Ie Soviet tanks are rolling all over Europe and there's no other way to stop them. There are other scenarios I also descibes above, take off your blinkers! an before you start I was using the Soviets as an example from History ok.

[Oneeyedvic]

So you state that the only time we would use them is when our country is threatened.

Who has the biggest land armies in the world? What is their proximity to the UK? In reality, we could never get invaded without the rest of Europe being invaded first. If that were to happen, do you think the US / USSR / China / India / other nuclear country would stand back and let it happen?

You keep telling me to look in history - well tell me when we last used a weapon like that - the only time it was used was when there was no potential of retaliation. It could have been used afterwards - Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan - but it hasn't been.

The 'rogue nation' scenario has already been played out - Afghanistan - they killed thousands of Amercian citizens in an attack - did the US use nukes? Did they even threaten to. No because it would never happen.

If nukes were the ultimate deterrant, please explain why we have had countries who have not had nukes invade other countries.