If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Do you worry about Nuclear Weapons?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't normally .. but the other day went to a museum and saw one on display - what struck me was how small it was - you could probably fit it in most Estate cars and yet it has the power to kill millions if dropped on a populated city.
0
Comments
Back in the Cold War days there was a real possibility of nuclear war. Now there isn't. And if a terrorist group was ever able to get their hands on one, it would make no difference whatsoever to them whether we had nukes or not (how and where exactly do you nuke Al Qaida, for instance?), so there really isn't much point in having any in the first place.
Though there's a general misunderstanding of nukes role in British policy. Most people still seem to think in the conventional terms of weapons are there to be used - a view which was ging out of fashion by 1918 and took a further kicking in 1945. british policy is based on deterrence, ie don't mess with us. Nuclear weapons are part of that deterrence strategy - they may seem expensive, but much, much less so that having to fight conventional wars.
But then if still you engaged in regular wars, even the ultra expensive Iraq war (what is it, £5bn?) is still loose change compared with with the extraordinary amount of money keeping our nuclear deterrent requires.
The overwelming part of that is the subs, the missiles and the nukes themselves dont really need changing.
As for the deterant factor, yes there are counter arguments, but frankly I think its wise for us to have a few nukes laying around as a back up. Whether we need all of the ones we have is a more important issue I think.
In today's climate I keep getting the impression that we'd be looking at either a terrorist group getting hold of and detonating a nuke in Britain (for which our nuclear deterrent is 100% useless) or a rogue state, implausible as it seems to me, deciding to wage nuclear war at Britain for some reason.
Even for this second scenario a handful of nukes would indeed be anything Britain needs. They would not need to be kept on submarines patrolling the world constantly either, for the threat of the entire country being destroyed belongs in the Cold War era.
que sera, sera.
Of course, against terrorists our nukes are completely useless, but as Flashman rightly points out the technology is out there and it is wide spread.
Personally I dont see another cold war type senario between the fading US and China all that unlikely.
what about tomorrow's climate? Whilst I currently think its unlikely we'll enter a new Cold War by the end of the week, I don't know what the world will look like in twenty years. It's possible to see scenarios where the EU and the US face off, China slips back down the Mao route, a resurgent Russia, EU splits with an expanionist France.
History is full of examples of the world changing
I happen to believe that the more nuclear weapons about, the less safe we all are. Therefore by getting rid of our nukes I believe we have a better chance of making the world safer for us all than of being attacked in the future for not having any at our disposal.
I think we have a philosophical difference as I believe 'If you want peace, prepare for war'
As per that non proliferation treaty it is against the terms to upgrade the actual warheads, but what you can do is change the delivery methods IIRC. I've *heard* that the Americans have been 'splitting' warheads in R&D and using them as tactical weapons, like those 500lb bombs they use to drop on bunkers... ...but no idea really.
But pretty sure they can only tamper with the actual delivery methods and such.
I think compared to the US we have a relatively tame stockpile, seeing as we have 1/5th the population they do, they have 20x the active nukes we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Estimated_worldwide_nuclear_stockpiles
We own the warheads and the bombs themselves, just not the missiles.
Oh, fair enough - either way we are renting a fairly key part of the system, unless we fancy throwing the bombs at people.
But what is the US going to do? Ask for them back?
If we stop paying the rent I assume they would. I guess I was just trying to point out that the cost of the refit of the nuclear deterrant is largely nothing to do with the bombs themselves.
Why would they?
In return for the nukes we rent out Diego Garcia to them, which is incredibly useful. If they did it to us, we'd do it to them.
We have the ability to build the missiles, just cheaper not to.
As for the nuclear weapons issue, I look at nations such as Spain, Germany, Italy, Canada and countless others and wonder why can't be join them. I've never met a person from those nations who feels unsecure because their country does not have nukes. Indeed, the notion of a nation such as China or Russia attacking them in the future because they have no nukes is too ludicrous for words.
Perhaps Britain needs to become less paranoid and stop believing it'd be invaded if it had no nuclear deterrent. There is no reason to think so, and far too much to be gained from abandoning its nuclear deterrent. £76bn would buy just about everything this country needs.
It's also one of the most strategic pieces of land on the planet, for the UK and USA.