Jokes5 mins ago
Should The Uk Disarm Its Nuclear Weapons?
35 Answers
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.
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I know the left struggle with paradoxical thinking but basically you need them so you don't need them."
I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronise me (or simply assume that I am left wing because my opinions are different to yours) - I'm well aware of the "deterrence" argument.
But I'd put it to you that the (fairly small) stock of nuclear weapons owned by the UK does not deter anyone from doing anything - because we aren't a particularly significant power. I also remember reading (I think in one of Peter Hennessey's books) that the UK's nuclear weapons require two keys to be launched - one of which is owned by the Americans. I find it hard to believe our nuclear weapons are a particularly effective deterrent when we don't have real control over them.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronise me (or simply assume that I am left wing because my opinions are different to yours) - I'm well aware of the "deterrence" argument.
But I'd put it to you that the (fairly small) stock of nuclear weapons owned by the UK does not deter anyone from doing anything - because we aren't a particularly significant power. I also remember reading (I think in one of Peter Hennessey's books) that the UK's nuclear weapons require two keys to be launched - one of which is owned by the Americans. I find it hard to believe our nuclear weapons are a particularly effective deterrent when we don't have real control over them.
the "we can't fire without the US" is an urban myth. It has been discussed on here before. We simply cannot know what will happen in the future. We have enough to flatten many major cities in any potential agressor's country. It's a weapon of last resort when we ourselves are threatened with the same. If a future rogue state had them and we did not we would be susceptable to purpetual blackmail. Other powers would not risk nuclear war to assist, our only defence is MAD. Apart from anything else the knowledge cannot be un learned and going forward nuclear weapons are only going to proliferate.
No, our only defence is not just MAD. Economic ties that bind, international treaties and mutual self-interest do far more to ensure peace than the threat of ICBMs - weapons that are singularly useless against modern day military threats. No good against terrorists, are they?
They are an expensive and dangerous white elephant.
Tell you what - how about you construct a half-way believable scenario where our Trident missile capability will actually have some meaning, some deterrent value, then we can discuss that.
Otherwise, they remain an expensive prop for the Navy, and a means by which we occupy one of the 5 permanent seats on the UN Security Council - Something which in itself leads to us getting dragged into foreign excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan to no clear end and at a great cost to us
They are an expensive and dangerous white elephant.
Tell you what - how about you construct a half-way believable scenario where our Trident missile capability will actually have some meaning, some deterrent value, then we can discuss that.
Otherwise, they remain an expensive prop for the Navy, and a means by which we occupy one of the 5 permanent seats on the UN Security Council - Something which in itself leads to us getting dragged into foreign excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan to no clear end and at a great cost to us
greater minds than ours must have considered them necessary. They must have considered various scenarios. Are you so arrogant as to belive that your view is correct and the governments of all the nations concerned are in some way intelectually inferior? Perhaps they are more valuable as a political tool?
What - an "argument from authority" now? Our betters know best what is good for us? You can go around tugging your forelock as you will; I prefer to make my own mind up based around what information I find.
Since when is it arrogant to make your own mind up, to formulate your own view? If I can be considered arrogant merely for making up my own mind, you can certainly be considered arrogant for dismissing all contributors that take a different view from you as either uneducated or - horror of horrors! - of the left!
You will find many eminent commentators.politicians and military strategists the world over who no longer think that the concept of MAD or ballistic nuclear missiles has any political or military value whatsoever, other than to bolster national pride. The world, its politics, its economic relationships and geopolitical arena have all changed and that change has rendered such weapons as redundant horrors.
We spend a fortune upon these never- to- be- used, last resort weapons - a fortune that could be far better spent on conventional military forces and for the education and health of the nation.Thats a far better way to spend taxpayers money for the benefit of the nation than some remote possibility of an inconceviable scenario that would require their use.
Since when is it arrogant to make your own mind up, to formulate your own view? If I can be considered arrogant merely for making up my own mind, you can certainly be considered arrogant for dismissing all contributors that take a different view from you as either uneducated or - horror of horrors! - of the left!
You will find many eminent commentators.politicians and military strategists the world over who no longer think that the concept of MAD or ballistic nuclear missiles has any political or military value whatsoever, other than to bolster national pride. The world, its politics, its economic relationships and geopolitical arena have all changed and that change has rendered such weapons as redundant horrors.
We spend a fortune upon these never- to- be- used, last resort weapons - a fortune that could be far better spent on conventional military forces and for the education and health of the nation.Thats a far better way to spend taxpayers money for the benefit of the nation than some remote possibility of an inconceviable scenario that would require their use.
When the Labour government of the 1950s (oh, wait, was it "the Left" who started this all?) initially started ordering Nuclear Weapons the arguments were far less about defence and far more about leverage with the Americans. This argument quickly got lost as the US ended up supplying us with the weapons in the end so we became dependent on them... but I think the point holds that Nuclear Weapons is often a political rather than a strategic point. There is fundamentally no situation in the future where either side is likely to fire a Nuclear Weapon, as long as their targets' allies also can retaliate on their behalf. I'm not convinced from a strategic point of view, then, that we need weapons if the US have them.
Nor indeed is it clear any more that it does provide leverage. It didn't then and it doesn't now. Economic ties, or severing them, are often far more of a threat.
In the meantime, a more real threat perhaps is not some Nation state launching weapons as an act of War, but of terrorists getting hold of weapons and launching them from a place against which it is impossible in principle to retaliate. Again, what then is the point? You can't fire back against a moving target.
I think the effort would be better spent on defence systems, rather than aggressive ones. If the only tie we would consider firing a Nuclear weapon is if the other side did first, we may as well put some effort into stopping their weapons from getting through instead since that would be almost as effective in ensuring safety.
In terms of the "Argument from Authority" -- greater minds than ours have also rejected the case for a Nuclear deterrent. There is division.
Something that has often puzzled me slightly, by the way -- the argument from deterrent should work both ways, no? If your enemy has them then so also should you. So... why do you think Iran might be so keen on developing Nuclear Weapons technology? Perhaps it is in part because their perceived enemies in "the West" also have such technology. Just a thought.
Nor indeed is it clear any more that it does provide leverage. It didn't then and it doesn't now. Economic ties, or severing them, are often far more of a threat.
In the meantime, a more real threat perhaps is not some Nation state launching weapons as an act of War, but of terrorists getting hold of weapons and launching them from a place against which it is impossible in principle to retaliate. Again, what then is the point? You can't fire back against a moving target.
I think the effort would be better spent on defence systems, rather than aggressive ones. If the only tie we would consider firing a Nuclear weapon is if the other side did first, we may as well put some effort into stopping their weapons from getting through instead since that would be almost as effective in ensuring safety.
In terms of the "Argument from Authority" -- greater minds than ours have also rejected the case for a Nuclear deterrent. There is division.
Something that has often puzzled me slightly, by the way -- the argument from deterrent should work both ways, no? If your enemy has them then so also should you. So... why do you think Iran might be so keen on developing Nuclear Weapons technology? Perhaps it is in part because their perceived enemies in "the West" also have such technology. Just a thought.
"greater minds than ours must have considered them necessary."
But they weren't acquired in a contemporary situation - as jim has said, our arsenal was originally built up in the 1950s, when the delusion of Britian as a great power was still quite set in.
Even aside from that, you assume that decisions taken by governments are necessarily made in ways that are rational or planned. Unfortunately, this just isn't always the case - particularly when it comes to defence spending, which (especially in the United States but also in Britain) is hugely influenced by the well-funded lobby of arms manufacturers.
But they weren't acquired in a contemporary situation - as jim has said, our arsenal was originally built up in the 1950s, when the delusion of Britian as a great power was still quite set in.
Even aside from that, you assume that decisions taken by governments are necessarily made in ways that are rational or planned. Unfortunately, this just isn't always the case - particularly when it comes to defence spending, which (especially in the United States but also in Britain) is hugely influenced by the well-funded lobby of arms manufacturers.
TTT - your phrase 'greater minds than ours' suggests that you follow a common misconception about people in power, whether in government, the military, in fact any bureaucracy at all.
It would be wonderful to think that people in positions of power over any other people anywhere are there by measure of their intelligence, integrity, and ability.
A casual look around the world proves this theory to be utterly without foundation.
Any country with military capacity is in thrall to major investors in military hardware, who by convoluted means usually ensure that their man is in the top position - the Bushes anyone?
No-one making millions from arms sales is going to sit still while the government they pay for does away with their cash cow, it is simply never going to happen.
So no, they are not 'greater minds than ours' - not while their first responsibilitiy is to their own bank accounts.
It would be wonderful to think that people in positions of power over any other people anywhere are there by measure of their intelligence, integrity, and ability.
A casual look around the world proves this theory to be utterly without foundation.
Any country with military capacity is in thrall to major investors in military hardware, who by convoluted means usually ensure that their man is in the top position - the Bushes anyone?
No-one making millions from arms sales is going to sit still while the government they pay for does away with their cash cow, it is simply never going to happen.
So no, they are not 'greater minds than ours' - not while their first responsibilitiy is to their own bank accounts.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.