Home Politics & Debate
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.

£76 Billion for Nuclear Subs?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Really? What about the Falklands? 9/11?

    Flashman you say if we disarm it won't mean anyone else will. Well thats an assertion which is as yet unknowable, but lets take it for granted. It doesn't follow that us getting rid of our nukes unilaterally is necessarily a bad thing. Just like poverty or disease: they will still exist in other countries if we get rid of it (which we could well do with that spare £76 billion) but at least we won't be contributing to human misery. Personally, my dying wish in the (almost implausible) event of another major power hitting the UK with nukes would not be for billions more around the world to die as well. I'd rather at least some people had a chance to live, even if they inhabited the territory whose rulers had killed me. For instance, I wouldn't want millions of innocent Chinese dead because the Chinese government had launched an attack on the UK.

    And why would a country decide to nuke another anyway? There have been examples of bitter enemies acquiring nukes before the other in the past, and they didn't result in a one-sided nuclear attack (e.g. the USA and the USSR, India and Pakistan).

    Anyway I'm fairly sure that most countries now realise that any nuclear exchange of more than a dozen bombs would have a terrible impact on all countries around the world, through economic instability, refugee crises, and above all the environmental disaster that would occur. I don't know which power could concievably want to nuke any other. I can think of individuals or small terrorist organizations who might want to: which is all the more reason for getting rid of weapons that they could take control of and use against us (or could be mistakenly detonated). Because who are you going to use your nukes against if some Islamist Extremists nuke London? Mecca? The entire middle east?

    Personally I think we should keep five or so nuclear bombs in a deep, deep storage bunker in Scotland somewhere, on minimum maintainance funding. If for some reason we decide we ever need them, they are there. If in the future there does arise an arms race which seems to be heading towards MAD: well, if the majority of the country decide they want to kill other people and increase our chance of being nuked, we have the technology, we can always rebuild a full scale nuclear deterrent.
    Excellent post :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Flashman you say if we disarm it won't mean anyone else will. Well thats an assertion which is as yet unknowable, but lets take it for granted. It doesn't follow that us getting rid of our nukes unilaterally is necessarily a bad thing. Just like poverty or disease: they will still exist in other countries if we get rid of it (which we could well do with that spare £76 billion) but at least we won't be contributing to human misery. Personally, my dying wish in the (almost implausible) event of another major power hitting the UK with nukes would not be for billions more around the world to die as well. I'd rather at least some people had a chance to live, even if they inhabited the territory whose rulers had killed me. For instance, I wouldn't want millions of innocent Chinese dead because the Chinese government had launched an attack on the UK.

    Neither would I, but detterrence theory doesn't work on that basis. Basically the second they launch they've failed. Nuclear weapons are based on the fact that the Chinese Govt won't risk a nuclear attack or blackmailing the UK Govt with the threat of nuclear weapons. The most effective sword is the one that never leaves its sheath.

    And why would a country decide to nuke another anyway? There have been examples of bitter enemies acquiring nukes before the other in the past, and they didn't result in a one-sided nuclear attack (e.g. the USA and the USSR, India and Pakistan).

    Which seems like an argument that nuclear detterrence works
    Anyway I'm fairly sure that most countries now realise that any nuclear exchange of more than a dozen bombs would have a terrible impact on all countries around the world, through economic instability, refugee crises, and above all the environmental disaster that would occur. I don't know which power could concievably want to nuke any other. I can think of individuals or small terrorist organizations who might want to: which is all the more reason for getting rid of weapons that they could take control of and use against us (or could be mistakenly detonated). Because who are you going to use your nukes against if some Islamist Extremists nuke London? Mecca? The entire middle east?

    Again - you seem to think the idea of nuclear weapons is to use them. It isn't. The use of nuclear weapons is not to use them.
    Personally I think we should keep five or so nuclear bombs in a deep, deep storage bunker in Scotland somewhere, on minimum maintainance funding. If for some reason we decide we ever need them, they are there. If in the future there does arise an arms race which seems to be heading towards MAD: well, if the majority of the country decide they want to kill other people and increase our chance of being nuked, we have the technology, we can always rebuild a full scale nuclear deterrent


    By the time you include security, building the bunker, the maintenance needed to keep them safe or usable, people trained to use them etc, etc, there is no real saving - that's why there being replaced. Its not to get a new super, duper bomb, but because these ones will be worn out and need to be replaced. A deterrent doesn't deter if it doesn't work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neither would I, but detterrence theory doesn't work on that basis. Basically the second they launch they've failed. Nuclear weapons are based on the fact that the Chinese Govt won't risk a nuclear attack or blackmailing the UK Govt with the threat of nuclear weapons. The most effective sword is the one that never leaves its sheath.

    The most effective sword doesn't obliterate the vast majority of the world's population and cause utter destruction of the environment, if it is used, accidentally or purposefully.

    So if China launched a nuclear attack designed to wipe out the UK's population, would you want to respond with the same? The argument that nukes exist so you never have to use them just doesn't click with me - if you believe that people in positions of power in nuclear nations would want to wipe Britain off the map (with all the damage that would do their country) if it didn't have nuclear weapons...well I'd say they were insane and spiteful enough to do it if Britain did have nuclear weapons.

    If we disarmed and China threatened us with nuclear weapons (for what?) I'd advise the Prime Minister to laugh in their face. Its not a plausible threat. If all thats keeping nuclear powers from threatening other countries with nukes is MAD then why aren't all the other countries in the world without nukes being constantly threatened/annexed by nuclear powers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    The most effective sword doesn't obliterate the vast majority of the world's population and cause utter destruction of the environment, if it is used, accidentally or purposefully.

    So if China launched a nuclear attack designed to wipe out the UK's population, would you want to respond with the same? The argument that nukes exist so you never have to use them just doesn't click with me - if you believe that people in positions of power in nuclear nations would want to wipe Britain off the map (with all the damage that would do their country) if it didn't have nuclear weapons...well I'd say they were insane and spiteful enough to do it if Britain did have nuclear weapons.

    If we disarmed and China threatened us with nuclear weapons (for what?) I'd advise the Prime Minister to laugh in their face. Its not a plausible threat. If all thats keeping nuclear powers from threatening other countries with nukes is MAD then why aren't all the other countries in the world without nukes being constantly threatened/annexed by nuclear powers?
    Well the argument does work if you happen to be the united states of america, and have a severe habit and knack of being able to piss anyone and everyone off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    The most effective sword doesn't obliterate the vast majority of the world's population and cause utter destruction of the environment, if it is used, accidentally or purposefully.

    So if China launched a nuclear attack designed to wipe out the UK's population, would you want to respond with the same? The argument that nukes exist so you never have to use them just doesn't click with me - if you believe that people in positions of power in nuclear nations would want to wipe Britain off the map (with all the damage that would do their country) if it didn't have nuclear weapons...well I'd say they were insane and spiteful enough to do it if Britain did have nuclear weapons.

    If we disarmed and China threatened us with nuclear weapons (for what?) I'd advise the Prime Minister to laugh in their face. Its not a plausible threat. If all thats keeping nuclear powers from threatening other countries with nukes is MAD then why aren't all the other countries in the world without nukes being constantly threatened/annexed by nuclear powers?

    I'm really struggling with your argument - because you are thinking off nuclear weapons as if they were tactical rather than a strategic weapon of last resort. To say a country would never use them against the UK would rather depend on the circumstances wouldn't it?

    Now I don't think China is going to say give us £100m in Gold or we take out Glasgow. But I can quite easily see a scenario where economic competition between China and the West leads to armed conflict and as part of that China threatens to use nukes (say to get British troops out of our ally South Korea). Us having nukes a) makes this type of high level conflict more unlikely in the first place b) if it happens means that threats to use nuclear weapons are less likely.

    I'd say peace in Europe since 1945 is a testament to nuclear weapons deterrence factor.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm really struggling with your argument - because you are thinking off nuclear weapons as if they were tactical rather than a strategic weapon of last resort. To say a country would never use them against the UK would rather depend on the circumstances wouldn't it?

    Now I don't think China is going to say give us £100m in Gold or we take out Glasgow. But I can quite easily see a scenario where economic competition between China and the West leads to armed conflict and as part of that China threatens to use nukes (say to get British troops out of our ally South Korea). Us having nukes a) makes this type of high level conflict more unlikely in the first place b) if it happens means that threats to use nuclear weapons are less likely.

    I'd say peace in Europe since 1945 is a testament to nuclear weapons deterrence factor.

    Well, nuclear weapons are tactical depending on who you are. For instance, if you are a terrorist group they are a tactical weapon. Also, the US has spent a lot of money in developing tactical "mini-nukes" which it does not rule out using in a conventional war (and are presumably now part of their battle plans).

    If we did get into a full scale war with China then perhaps there would be an argument for a nuclear deterrent: but we are not, and we want to avoid that. I don't think peace in Europe since 1945 is attributable to nuclear weapons, just as I don't think peace in Europe during the nineteenth century was.

    This is a difficult argument to have, because neither of us know the highest and most secret level stuff that goes on (for instance between the UK and China). How close we might have come in the past...

    ...and if I'm right, I'll only have 0.04 seconds to feel smug before my brain evaporates into a billion pieces of radioactive dust.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Can't we just build a Death Star and tell everyone to fuck off and leave us alone instead?
Sign In or Register to comment.