Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ UK - Unilateral nuclear disarmament
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd October 2017, 06:22 AM
Should we give up our nuclear weapons (even without a reciprocal gesture from other nuclear countries)?
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd October 2017, 08:58 AM
Yes. We can’t use them without the permission of the Americans anyway so there’s literally no point in having them. Plus they dangerous AF and a colossal waste of money and scarce resources
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd October 2017, 09:28 AM
We can't use them without US permission? Where did that bizarre suggestion come from?
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd October 2017, 10:06 AM
Parliament. It was mentioned during the trident renewal debate
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 23rd October 2017, 11:46 AM
It's American equipment and American codes. Assume the US is taken over by a nutter, say with Armageddon on his mind, threatening to reign down Hellfire like never before seen, or ooh, corruptly elected by a foreign government intent on destroying NATO and sticking huge import taxes on stuff made in this country - I know it's a stretch - and they are virtually useless. Money after nothing that could be spent on conventional forces.....or the NHS, as promised in some quarters.
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd October 2017, 01:39 PM
Who made that suggestion, then?
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 23rd October 2017, 04:04 PM
Private eye's late military correspondent ex forces was well up on what the latest situations are and they did an in depth article. They can't be fired without going through USA military IT first.
EBen if that is incorrect there are plenty of articles you can Google to show how we are totally dependant on the USA for specialist parts and we pay shitloads for the privilege of having ageing American nuclear weapons that won't work without those spare parts.
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd October 2017, 04:29 PM
EBen if that is incorrect there are plenty of articles you can Google to show how we are totally dependant on the USA for specialist parts and we pay shitloads for the privilege of having ageing American nuclear weapons that won't work without those spare parts.
That sounds more like Yes Minister than Private Eye...
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 23rd October 2017, 08:46 PM
We live in a Yes Minister world. 5 years ago who have put money on a racist homophobe far-right thick-as-a-brick spoilt rich pussy-grabbing, poor-sick-people-killing, Russian mafia-supporting TV personality being the most powerful man in the world - and then spend all his time golfing?
Posted by: TheBattenburglar 23rd October 2017, 10:19 PM
Did somebody say...Yes Minister?
As I've stated before, I am against nuclear weapons, but consider myself a multilateralist rather than a unilateralist. Unless all nuclear powers agree to give up weapons at the same time, then one power will be able to hold the others over a metaphorical barrel.
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd October 2017, 10:30 PM
But would they? Look at the countries that don't have nuclear weapons. Has any country tried to invade Germany? Or Japan? Australia? Canada? None of the have nuclear weapons but they seem to have managed perfectly well without them.
The issue for me has always been a matter of when they would be used. No sane leader would order a first strike because of the risk of retaliation. If a British PM was asked to consider a retaliatory strike, it would have taken a catastrophic failure to have reached that position in the first place. And what good would a retaliatory strike do? If a leader was mad enough to launch a first strike against the UK, surely they would be just as happy to lob another missile in our direction if we retaliated.
Of course, the existence of Trump and Kim in charge of nuclear states complicates matters somewhat. However, I still cannot imagine a scenario in which I would support their use by the UK. Therefore, there seems no point in me supporting us having them in the first place. Let's support the NHS instead. Where have I head that before? 
Posted by: vidcapper 24th October 2017, 05:57 AM
Surely it's safer him golfing, than getting actively involved in all aspects of running gov't...
Yes, that's what I referred to, but entertaining though it is, it's just satire.
You're old enough to remember the Cold War, and the concept of MAD - it is still just as applicable now. Besides the NK fat boy doesn't have the means to carry out his threat.
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 24th October 2017, 07:08 AM
Yes, that's what I referred to, but entertaining though it is, it's just satire.
You're old enough to remember the Cold War, and the concept of MAD - it is still just as applicable now. Besides the NK fat boy doesn't have the means to carry out his threat.
1. No it isn't.
2. Satire is by it's nature mocking reality through humour. Otherwise it's fantasy humour.
3. Note, you don't include the other "fat boy" nutter in the White House, who actually has the codes to our nuclear weapons. Funny that.
Posted by: vidcapper 24th October 2017, 08:04 AM
Not really - America is not a dictatorship, so Trump cannot act unilaterally.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th October 2017, 08:36 AM
Trump can order a nuclear strike unilaterally. The only difference is that Kim's order should probably be carried out as anyone defying his orders would be shot. We have to hope that some people would be prepared to defy Trump's orders.
As for the Cold War and MAD, it applies to retaliation as well as a first strike. That's why I think there is no point in possessing such weapons.
Posted by: vidcapper 24th October 2017, 10:42 AM
That just hands the advantage to those with the strongest conventional army.
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 24th October 2017, 11:44 AM
Yes he can. He has a lackey carry the launch codes and equipment at all times. What Suedehead said about praying someone is willing to commit treason for the sake of the world and refuse to obey. What do you think he was threatening North Korea with about reigning down hellfires and the like?
I mean this has been in every Hollywood disaster blockbuster for decades, you don't even need to google anything...
Posted by: vidcapper 24th October 2017, 01:20 PM
I mean this has been in every Hollywood disaster blockbuster for decades, you don't even need to google anything...
I rarely watch movies, especially not those sort of movies!
Posted by: blacksquare 11th November 2019, 11:42 AM
Oh, this discussion is back and as tiring and as insane as ever.
The obsession to simplify a decision with such severe consequences to a yes or no question will always be ridiculous to me — especially when you think about the likelihood of such an event.
Foreign policy and democracy would need to completely fail first.