Should we give up our nuclear weapons (even without a reciprocal gesture from other nuclear countries)?

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

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

 

We can't use them without US permission? Where did that bizarre suggestion come from?

 

 

Parliament. It was mentioned during the trident renewal debate

We can't use them without US permission? Where did that bizarre suggestion come from?

 

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.

Parliament. It was mentioned during the trident renewal debate

 

Who made that suggestion, then?

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.

 

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.

 

That sounds more like Yes Minister than Private Eye... :P

That sounds more like Yes Minister than Private Eye... :P

 

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?

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.

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? :unsure:

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?

 

Surely it's safer him golfing, than getting actively involved in all aspects of running gov't... :teresa:

 

Did somebody say...Yes Minister?

 

 

Yes, that's what I referred to, but entertaining though it is, it's just satire.

 

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? :unsure:

 

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.

Edited October 24, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Surely it's safer him golfing, than getting actively involved in all aspects of running gov't... :teresa:

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.

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.

 

Not really - America is not a dictatorship, so Trump cannot act unilaterally.

 

Not really - America is not a dictatorship, so Trump cannot act unilaterally.

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.

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.

 

That just hands the advantage to those with the strongest conventional army.

 

Not really - America is not a dictatorship, so Trump cannot act unilaterally.

 

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...

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...

 

I rarely watch movies, especially not those sort of movies!

@1193840224859828224

 

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.

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by blacksquare

Stupid, stupid question. There's no right answer. Answer yes and suddenly it's a betrayal of policies, answer no and thousands of mouth-breathers want to know why you wouldn't hit a button to slaughter millions.

 

There is zero reason for us to still have these things. Disarmament needs to be agreed upon.