Should the UK renew its nuclear arsenal?

Kurush · March 2007

Britain's nuclear arsenal is up for renewal.

Proponents argue that a personal deterrent against attacks from rogue states should always be kept. After all, you can't 100% rely on support from other nations, should you be the target of a WMD.

Opponents say it's simply not necessary or particularly effective as a defense measure. Also, with the US being a close ally and possessing global nuclear capability, it's unlikely that a nation could get away with an already unlikely WMD attack on the UK.

I'm almost certain that the British arsenal will be maintained at the end of the day, but I'm wondering how you Brits feel about this? I'm guessing that the RN is still a matter of national pride for the UK, and a big part of the RN's teeth is its Trident submarines, where the British nuclear capability lies.

Edit: I totally meant to put this in the off-topic forum. Can a mod move it, please?

treysmooth · March 2007

I'm in the U.S. but I fall into the category of the keep them for your own national security category. To have peace you must be prepared for war and thats what having the capabilities amount to, in my opinion. Granted the United States would never allow aggressive acts towards you Brits and with good reason. Great Britain seems to always support U.S. causes as well, and though I can't see either country using nuclear arms the threat will likely keep rouge nations such as North Korea in check, knowing that if they launch a strike at the wrong target the repercussions will be swift and could come from a location not so far away. To me its similar to the argument that comes from the far left in U.S. that we should ban guns in general when in reality this would simply leave the criminals with weapons and the honest people with no means to protect themselves. Yes it would be great if everyone could disarm but its simply not realistic as rogue nations will continue to pursue and if possible arm themselves with nuclear stockpiles. Sometimes the threat of a weapon is greater than the actual use such as the cold war weapons build up in the 1980's between the U.S. and Russia.

Just my two cents

Peace

Klave · March 2007

Please move to IQ forum. Thankyou.

Klave · March 2007

Careful Kurush.

Someone may think youre a "SELF- ABSORBED A!!HOLE IN LOVE WITH YOUR OWN PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE" i dont, but of course people are like that. Bye mate.

CleffyII · March 2007

Making nukes isn't a cheap endeavour. I think the resources could better be spent on anti-nuke deterrents like the "Star Wars" system in the US. It's alot more sane to say, If you attack us it won't do anything then, if you kill us you will die too.

CaesarsGhost · March 2007

Nuke the Whales man.

Gotta nuke somethin.

Antipathy · March 2007

We have already signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, where we (the UK) have agreed to work towards nuclear disarmament.

Renewing our nuclear deterrent would be in violation of that treaty. The very same treaty that we use to justify sending weapons inspectors into other countries in order to control the spread of nuclear weapons.

It would also be vastly expensive. Countries with low defense spending such as Germany and Japan seem to do pretty well in economic terms and hence in world influence. Taking the same path does not seem such a bad idea to me.

Cabe2323 · March 2007

I am a service member in the US Navy. That being said the Nuclear bomb is one of those things I think we can all agree we wish was never invented. IF it hadn't been invented I most likely wouldn't be alive here though today. My grandfather was preparing for the massive invasion of Japan during WW2. We would of sustain massive casualities and seeing how my grandfather had already surived being shot down twice during the Pacific campaign and survived the D-Day landing at Normandy, statistically speaking he wouldn't of had a very good chance of surviving the invasion of Japan. And since my Father wasn't born at that point yet I wouldn't be here.

That being said, I think at this point we still need to have nuclear arms to be used as a deterrent. Yes it won't be a very good deterrent for say North Korea if they decide to shoot a nuke at us, but after we destroyed their whole country launching numerous nukes at them, it would definitely be a deterrent against any other rogue nation deciding to do it.

I wish no one had nukes and there weren't any nuclear weapons, but until we develop sufficient defense systems that will protect against them we still need to have them.

CleffyII · March 2007

The funny thing about the atomic bomb is the war ended a few hours before it was dropped.

CaesarsGhost · March 2007

Originally posted by Cabe2323

I am a service member in the US Navy. That being said the Nuclear bomb is one of those things I think we can all agree we wish was never invented.

I don't agree with that. And I'm a Naval Vet...

I'm glad it was invented. You might not realize it, but that bomb has kept wars from starting... and it finished 1 war.

A perfect example is the "Cold War". That wouldn't have been a nuclear standoff, it would've been us using "conventional" weapons against each other. The death toll would've been horrific. The Nukes are what kept that conflict in a "Cold War" state, instead of a "War" state... nobody wanted to open Pandora's Box, and it eventually (after a decade +) resolved itself. Had Pandora's Box not been in the way, I sincerely doubt it would've ended as it did.

Keep in mind that even if the bomb wasn't invented (or used)... we probably would've come up with some other weapon equally as devestating and scary.

Rehmes · March 2007

Before hand i am Cuban but im living in the US. Im an International Relations major and i personnaly believe that the UK or ANY other country for that matter should not proceed to renew/update their nuclear arsenal. The US is part of that anti-proliferation treaty but since 2000 bush decided he wanted to continue the nuclear program (making more precise warheads and updating old ones). So far the deal has only been to update old ones but many of those 'rogue' states are using that as a reason to arm themselves, because they dont trust the US.

Another issue you have to take into account is this: if a terrorist group attacks the UK with the usual bomb, you wont be retaliating with a nuke lest you want to turn all the nagative attention on yourself; and believe me even those 'allies' will be upset youve used disproportionate power such as a nuke since no ones used one since 1945.

If someone sneaks a dirty bomb into the UK you still have your old ones to retaliate with, but do realize that terrorist groups dont work for a defined government, and even the ones that do (Hezbollah etc) arent responsible for the populace they live with. What i mean is that even if you know what government sent the terrorist group to bomb you, nuking them back is not the best retaliation.

In then end i think the best route is a defence platform, though in all honesty that technology is still years away from being of any true use and is highly expensive. Though im sure you can always go on a partnership venture with the US to lower the costs. But again, being realistic its highly unlikely that anyone is going to launch a nuke at all towards the UK or even the US, because then well know who did it and when missiles are flying you better believe ours will be too. The real threat lies in dirty bombs being brought into your country or chemical/biological weapons. Its outright suicide for any rogue country to send a nuke towards any western power or ANY country for that matter. We always know whats on the air and where its going to, that makes it easy to know who did it.

The best route IMO is to fund the intelligence agencies further and ofc better trained military/police. The more acurate the information the better your soldiers/police officers will be able to defend your country.

BTW if my post is damned confusing im sry.....i could write a freaking dissertation on all the info i have on the subject matter and because of that its hard to post something short enough that people will read lol. Anyway there are many pros and cons to each action and i hope i at least gave ya a few reasons as to why the UK shouldnt update and instead what it should actually do.

Antipathy · March 2007

The advent of nuclear weapons may well have hastened the end of world war 2. However whether we were right to develop nuclear weapons, or possess them during the cold war, are not the matters under debate.

The topic at hand is whether the UK should continue to hold nuclear weapons in the future. Whilst history can provide examples and supporting evidence, the decision should be based on the state of the world now, and how we view it as changing in the near future.

I personally find either a new world war, or a new cold war, to be somewhat unlikely.

Cabe2323 · March 2007

Originally posted by CaesarsGhost

Originally posted by Cabe2323

I am a service member in the US Navy. That being said the Nuclear bomb is one of those things I think we can all agree we wish was never invented.

I don't agree with that. And I'm a Naval Vet...

I'm glad it was invented. You might not realize it, but that bomb has kept wars from starting... and it finished 1 war.

A perfect example is the "Cold War". That wouldn't have been a nuclear standoff, it would've been us using "conventional" weapons against each other. The death toll would've been horrific. The Nukes are what kept that conflict in a "Cold War" state, instead of a "War" state... nobody wanted to open Pandora's Box, and it eventually (after a decade +) resolved itself. Had Pandora's Box not been in the way, I sincerely doubt it would've ended as it did.

Keep in mind that even if the bomb wasn't invented (or used)... we probably would've come up with some other weapon equally as devestating and scary.

The thing with this is, why would there been any War that actually started between the USSR and USA. There were no acts of direct aggression other then ramping up their nuclear arsenals. It is not very likely that anything would of started a large war during this time period. The cold war was more of a war of ideas with our capitalism against their communism. I honestly think that even without nuclear weapons on both side this time period would of been more of a war of words and thoughts then direct fighting.

And the Cold War ended due to problems within Russia's social structure and culture. The Nuclear bomb had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War. And really WW2 would of ended without the use of the Bomb as well, like I said we had plans drawn up for the invasion of mainland Japan. Remember before the bomb dropped the European theater was done and Hitler had already been defeated.

The nuclear bomb is one of the worst things humans have ever invented. There are still birth defects from the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki.

Cabe2323 · March 2007

Thought you might find these quotes interesting about WW2:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."^{General Dwight D. Eisenhower}

Rattrap · March 2007

Renewing Nuclear Arsenal for any country , including UK

Has equivalent usefulness of filling the every single living room of every single citisen of that great nation with horse turd.

Except that later is far more useful.

Weapons are made to be used. And it is widely known fact that any usage of atomic warhead will result in world wide nuclear war.

Well except for bombs thrown on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - after Japan surendered. Creating the biggest unpunished genocide crime in history of human race.

achesoma · March 2007

There is not much purpose in defeating an enemy with a weapon that leaves an uninhabitable wasteland. Weapon technology is available that can wipe out all biological life and leave all structures/objects intact. However, having a nuclear program gives a better understanding of how that technology works, thereby giving a better defense against such potential attacks.

Amarsir · March 2007

Its always struck me that as tremendous as their destructive power is, the psychological power of nuclear weapons is even greater. And like the bombs themselves, that power isn't as controlled or short-lived as would be desired.

Even adding in lingering radiation effects, the damage done by a nuclear weapon can certainly be outdone by sheer quantity of conventional bombs. And has been, many times over. Yet there's much less stigma with the explosive/incendiary ones, no movement for disarmament of explosives. That's somewhat good in that it provides pressure, preventing further excalation to some thousands-of-nukes dropping stage. And yet I think it warps our priorities, sending the message "sure ... kill thousands, millions of people. Just don't do it in one shot."

And that's the real error in focus. Nuclear weapons should be seen as horrible, fearful things that no one would ever want to use. But lets have the proper priorities - the real objective should be not eliminating the nukes, but eliminating the desire to use them. In so doing not only do we save each other from nuclear obliteration, but from the very real and all-too-common other methods as well.

That's the underlying philosophy with a long term outlook. Practically speaking in the short term, there are two completing factors:

1. Nuclear weapons are most effective for killing 100% of the people in one area, not some fraction of the population spread out over a region. Yet the latter is what's being faced today.

2. Focusing only for today leaves you unprepared for tomorrow.

That to me adds up to nuclear weapons being few, but existant. Great Britain and the US will almost always come together, and likely would arrive at the same conclusions independantly. But neither country would want to rely on the other for something as crucial as this. It's just a natural extension of the democratic view, each citizen wanting to be in some way in charge of issues this critical.

And not just from a "well if you won't fire we will" situation. Two allies both with nuclear capability can have a much more even and responsible dialogue. Consider the effect of "we're not going to fire and we urge you not to either" vs "even though it's not our responsibility we're going to tell you what to do."

Lastly, sad though it is to say, sometimes the biggest possible offense is a very good defense. Guns are terrible weapons right? Killing at range effectively, instantly, repeatably. And we've of course gotten so enlightened in recent decades that troops are taboo, but everyone wants to send "peacekeepers."

So why do "peacekeepers" carry guns? Because sometimes it's necessary. If you shoot one man, who was himself going to shoot 10, you've saved 9 just by the math. To say nothing of the mentality/ideology/innocence of the 1 vs the 10. Well, extrapolate that. I certainly hope no nuclear weapon ever gets used. But it doesn't take much imagination to realize there are potential situations where it would be the difficult, but correct, decision. Until we can guarantee that all of those situations are impossible, better to keep a few big sticks around.

baff · March 2007

If a weapon exists, we should have one.

The bigger and more powerful it is, the more urgent our need.

Rattrap · March 2007

It was once calculated that USA alone has enough nuclear warheads to destroy the whole surface of planet earth ... 4 times.

How long do we have Nuclear warheads ? Around 60 years now ?

Many of our smart militant posters do not know that in year 1974 only god and insane luck saved us from the nuclear war.

So in 60 years of their existance we almost caused one nuclear holocaust ?

We are humans for crying out loud! We invented holocaust, we invented genocide. We killed millions because of their skin color. We used other peaple as work animals. We enslave whole nations because shiney rocks.

We invaded other countries because they are EVIL! And lost hundreds of young men fighting useless war that we were not sopposed to fight.

Yes lets gamble some more.

WE NEED EVEN MORE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO UPHOLD PEACE !

And lets pray to god that people controling them are sane

phatpanda · March 2007

I think Britian should renew it's nuclear arsenal. It will simply risk too much by having complete faith in that U.S will come and rescue Britian everytime. (In another word, Britian will complete it's final step of becoming a complete concubine of U.S)

World politics can change rather quickly. Your best allie today can be ur worse enemy tomorrow. Hey, most of us can still remember the Boston Tea party and the American Revolution. It is not entirely absurd to say that maybe 20 yrs down the road, U.S and Britain will not be as friendly as they are today, perhaps even with abit hostility?

Without your own protection, u are left at the mercy of other people. Let's face it, that leave u in a rather "compromising" position. Also U.S will always watchout for it's own interest before Britian. If an occasion arises that U.S stands to gain more, or think that they will gain more, by sacrificing Biritian's interest, US won't think twice about selling Britian out. just like Britian and the rest of the European nation did to Poland during World War II.

I dont understand why some people can be so delusional and hope their prince on a white horse will come and rescue them in time of need...

shilak · March 2007

I would rather we didnt renew them. There is little real point in having them, if some nutter manages to sneak one in to the country and detonate it then it isnt going to matter that we have nukes anyway. If a nuclear war erupts its not going to matter if we have a handful of nukes either, as we will all be screwed anyway.

What humanity needs is something other than petty squables over skin colour and religion to focus on. We are one planet in billions, its about time we stopped squabbling like children in playgrounds and started working together.

Antipathy · March 2007

Originally posted by phatpanda

I think Britian should renew it's nuclear arsenal. It will simply risk too much by having complete faith in that U.S will come and rescue Britian everytime. (In another word, Britian will complete it's final step of becoming a complete concubine of U.S)

Britain will be just as defenseless as the other several hundred nations of this world that don't have nuclear weapons. Or are you arguing that they should have nuclear weapons too.

World politics can change rather quickly. Your best allie today can be ur worse enemy tomorrow. Hey, most of us can still remember the Boston Tea party and the American Revolution. It is not entirely absurd to say that maybe 20 yrs down the road, U.S and Britain will not be as friendly as they are today, perhaps even with abit hostility?

Really? How often in the past 200 years have allied nations changed into enemies in the space of less than a decade? And I don't mean alliances of convenience. I mean real alliances.

Without your own protection, u are left at the mercy of other people. Let's face it, that leave u in a rather "compromising" position. Also U.S will always watchout for it's own interest before Britian. If an occasion arises that U.S stands to gain more, or think that they will gain more, by sacrificing Biritian's interest, US won't think twice about selling Britian out. just like Britian and the rest of the European nation did to Poland during World War II.

The US does a pretty good job of looking after it's own interest anyway (e.g. note how rich the US became during world war 2 whilst Britain became a huge debtor). I don't really see them getting much worse if we abandoned our nuclear deterrent.

And how exactly did we sell out Poland? We declared war with Germany precisely because Poland was invaded. We honoured our obligations and endured much hardship as a result. Meanwhile the US sat smugly on the sidelines.

dont understand why some people can be so delusional and hope their prince on a white horse will come and rescue them in time of need...

I wouldn't see the US as a prince on a white horse - or at least the armour of that prince is a little tarnished. Not that I'm anti-US or anything - just like any nation it has it's pro's and con's.

However are you saying that the US has no intention of fulfilling it's obligations under NATO treaties, which include mutual defence as a key part? In which case we may as well pack our bags now and leave you guys to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by yourselves.

And you still haven't described what conceivable threat couldn't be dealt with by NATO conventional forces without any nukes at all.

freeid · March 2007

I am from the UK and I say update the nuklear deterent, but in doing so halve the number we have. Nobody wants a rusty nuke.

Oh and The day Britain relies on another country to provide its defence is the day I pack up and leave.

baff · March 2007

Unless we have nukes, we can't stand up to the U.S.

We can't stand up to France.

We can't stand up to Russia.

We can't stand up to India.

We can't stand up to Pakistan.

We can't stand up to Korea.

We can't even stand up to Israel.

Anyone of them could attack us without fear of retaliation. They wouldn't even have to attack us, they could just steal our foreign assets and laugh at us if we complained.

They wouldn't do that? History shows that even while at war, allied against common enemies, they have all done exactly that.

That's what our friends would do. The world isn't just full of reasonable and peacable people, it is also full of unreasonable and dangerous people.

Take a note out of Saddam's book. If you have something other people want, and you don't have any nukes, they will roll you over and take it. Even if 10 years ago you were their allies shaking their hands on the world stage.

Weakness invites attack even where no attack had previously been contemplated.

Two closely matched armies are unlikely to want to fight each other, a strong one is all too willing for victory against a weak one.

phatpanda · March 2007

[quote] Britain will be just as defenseless as the other several hundred nations of this world that don't have nuclear weapons. Or are you arguing that they should have nuclear weapons too. [/quote]

well, if that's what you want, then I guess it's ok.

[quote] Really? How often in the past 200 years have allied nations changed into enemies in the space of less than a decade? And I don't mean alliances of convenience. I mean real alliances.[/quote]

what is a true allience? Can you please give me a definition?

[quote] And how exactly did we sell out Poland? We declared war with Germany precisely because Poland was invaded. We honoured our obligations and endured much hardship as a result. Meanwhile the US sat smugly on the sidelines. [/quote]

You started the war because you guys realized Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's tactic didnt work... not because you do not agree with Germany morally regarding taking over Czechoslovakia. I do apologize, it wasn't Poland, it was Czechoslovakia.

[quote] However are you saying that the US has no intention of fulfilling it's obligations under NATO treaties, which include mutual defence as a key part? In which case we may as well pack our bags now and leave you guys to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by yourselves. [/quote]

Wow, I didn't realize Canada was actively fighting in Iraq like U.S... I gotta read more news...

Edit: oops, I messed up with the quotes... but ohh well...

Amarsir · March 2007

And the Cold War ended due to problems within Russia's social structure and culture. The Nuclear bomb had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War.

No use of the bomb, threatened or actual, had anything to do with the Cold War, but the statement that the arsenal had nothing to do with it isn't correct. As you say, it was the internal structure that led to the Soviet Union's collapse. But the government's need to prioritize military development to the detriment of quality of life is what pushed it over the brink. The direct cause: SDI. Turning point: Reykjavik, Oct 1986. So much so that the Strategic Defense Initiative, merely a theory at that point, was chosen as a deal-breaker by Gorbachev.

Even in the midst of complete nuclear disarmament.

A tentative agreement was made for total disarmament by both the Soviets and the US by 2000, with other proliferating nations to be brought in. However, Gorbachev insisted that all research into SDI be stopped as well. Reagan stood by the fact that it's a purely defensive system, and with nuclear weapons gone was moot to the Russians anyway, and that the US would continue to develop it for security against an uncertain future. Thus the deal fell through.

Now why, if nuclear weapons didn't matter, would the Russians put so much emphasis on a defensive system like that? Because they knew they were in a race, and were losing. They couldn't keep up with this kind of advancement, and the effort was drawing the focus away from life improvements at home. Sure enough, following the summit the soviets increased military development budgets even more, siphoning more resources out of a starving consumer economy, and leading to the USSR's downfall.

Nuclear weapons weren't the direct cause of the Cold War's end, but the cost of military spending circling around them absolutely was.

While I have you Cabe2323, let me quickly address the WW2 quotes and implied message.

There are different levels of "defeat," it's much too big a concept to be left to one simple word. A gunman robber would no doubt be likely to "release his hostages" if the cops would just go away and let him leave unmolested. In fact I'm sure he has several solutions in mind. Does that mean the police are doing the wrong thing when he's already willing to "release the hostages?" No, because there are larger issues - you need a permanent stoppage, not a temporary one.

Such was the case with Japan at the end of WW2. They were "defeated" in that they knew they could not continue to advance across the Pacific. They were "defeated" in that they were losing, like the chess player down a Queen but still playing for stalemate. They were "defeated" in that they were perfectly willing to stop exchanging bullets and bombs with the US, at least for a while. The assessment that they were "defeated" is not nearly concrete enough to stand alone. I mean c'mon, Hitler was "defeated" at Stalingrad. Does that mean no one should have advanced to Berlin?

Defeat in a war requires a list of terms. That list for Japan in WW2: The Potsdam Declaration.

All clearly spelled out, delivered to Japan on July 26, 1945. No estimate of "I think they were defeated in spirit" or "we mostly won, mostly" comes anywhere near as close as that precise list of terms. And to accept it, no reading-between-the-lines is necessary. The emporer had to say "we accept." Not a complex message, and not one that takes long to deliver or can be misconstrued.

August 6 the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Plenty of time for surrender, but Japan was hoping to turtle up, and therefore said nothing. And you know what? The emperor didn't even surrender then. I can't support saying it wasn't necessary, when it wasn't enough! There were 3 whole days more until Nagasaki. Even then, it took 5 more damn days before Japan accepted the terms on Aug 14.

That is not a nation that wanted peace but the "mean ol' Americans" wouldn't listen. That's a warlike nation of aggressors who wanted time to rebuild and try again. After accepting the Potsdam Declaration, the US was more than happy to stop. And gave several weeks for the formal surrender. All they had to do was be willing.

The only reason anyone even wants to revisit Hiroshima was because, as I said in my other post, nuclear weapons have a stigma. If we'd used conventional bombs to level Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Tokyo and Osaka and Kobe and a bunch of other places, no one would even bring it up. Seriously, when was the last time anyone had a conversation about Dresden, a far far less necessary target? How many people with lectures ready to go on Hiroshima even know what Dresden is?

Howdy, Stranger!

Should the UK renew its nuclear arsenal?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Should the UK renew its nuclear arsenal?

Comments