That would depend upon (a) how you define 'return. (b) whether our seat on the UNSC is inextricably linked to our status and (c) How does our position as a Nuclear Power determine our standing in such international and treaty arrangements such as NATO? (d) Does our possessing a Nuclear Deterrent contribute to innovation and technology as it once did?
Poll: Do you believe the UK should have its own Nuclear Deterrent?
- Thread starter kitkat9933
- Start date
That would depend upon (a) how you define 'return. (b) whether our seat on the UNSC is inextricably linked to our status and (c) How does our position as a Nuclear Power determine our standing in such international and treaty arrangements such as NATO? (d) Does our possessing a Nuclear Deterrent contribute to innovation and technology as it once did?
We don't need one, but it could come in quite handy. Having the seat effectively shields us from UNSC resolutions because we can veto them. We can also use our position on the UNSC to advance our interests, giving us more international influence.
Resolution 502 probably wouldn't have happened if we had not been a UNSC member for example.
Currently NATO has a policy of Nuclear Sharing in its deployment of Nuclear Deterence...this ensures a blanket protection for everyone within the NATO umbrella from Nuclear Attack from a foreign power, however as you know there are only three Nuclear Powers in NATO and only the United States 'shares' its weapons outside of its borders....however there is no guarantee that we could continue to rely upon US 'sharing' if the Nuclear 'pool' was smaller than it currently is, particularly if France followed the UK hypothetical example and terminated its Nuclear Programme....the US may well no longer feel obliged to field the entire cost of placement and defence, not to mention the innate loss of strategic position the NATO umbrella has with a multi national Nuclear Deterrent and its implied strength on the UNSC. The removal or disbanding of our Nuclear Deterrent would also impact the UK-US Mutual Defence Treaty.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
The world will end with a nuclear war - that's what happens when you meddle with the affairs of other countries.
So if N Korea had missiles capable of reaching say "London" and he decides to launch them were is the satisfaction in knowing somewhere a submarine will fire ours and blow up some innocent brainwashed N Koreans too ?
Where's my feelings of warmth and safety in knowing that? Cos some **** with small man syndrome and a chip on their shoulder couldn't back down from an argument.
Its just a giant game of call my bluff and all it takes is 1 ****less idiot advised by ****less idiot generals and statisticians to destroy Millions of normal peoples lives.
I just thank God America has Obama at the moment.
Where's my feelings of warmth and safety in knowing that? Cos some **** with small man syndrome and a chip on their shoulder couldn't back down from an argument.
Its just a giant game of call my bluff and all it takes is 1 ****less idiot advised by ****less idiot generals and statisticians to destroy Millions of normal peoples lives.
I just thank God America has Obama at the moment.
Last edited:
The idea of a deterrent is precisely that, to deter the silly beggar from doing doing it in the first place. Of course if he is a total lunatic (which is surprisingly very rare that a despot is crazy) then he will not push the button exactly because he knows a few minutes later he will be on the recieving end of another big red button pusher. Self preservation is the usual by-word of dictators and despots..they rely on rhetoric and 'creating' foreign monsters to secure power at home, and threaten and cajole to project power abroad, again to secure their powerbase at home. Sometimes the whole thing goes **** up, see Saddam Hussein for an example...
I think that could be manageable, but as you can guess I'm not convinced by the backwards thinking in the argument for weapons of mass destruction as an offensive weapon or a deterrent - irrespective of who is wielding them on our behalf or not - in the first place.
Illegal, immoral, costly and unjustifiable.
indeed. Well on a personal level im very happy to be an American's lapdog for as long as we can share their umbrella of Mutually assured destruction and spend a few more pennies on nicer things. Im tired. I dont think anyone would be able to present me with a logical case that can persuade me. It sounds strange but given all out Nuclear war id rather die in the first minutes than live and wonder why everyone couldn't just put their peckers back in their pants and get over them self.
Women should rule the world they tend to be "nicer" (except Thatcher )
Women should rule the world they tend to be "nicer" (except Thatcher )
Because a country like Argentina may try to get a resolution passed regarding the Falklands as an example? Whilst we have a veto on the UNSC then they are pretty limited in what they can do via the UN.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 May 2005
- Posts
- 859
- Location
- Devon
Has anyone worked out how much money M.A.D has saved over the years and potential major conflicts it’s stopped.
Seems far cheaper than actual war to me.
Seems far cheaper than actual war to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
We need a nuclear deterrent imho.
How on earth could you calculate something as fallacious and vacuous as that?
Can we cost up all the money wasted, and real major conflicts it has failed to stop in any respect?
Start a thread with a more definite subject and your question/answers and I will