NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that the US and other posters may not care so much but yesterday marked the beginning of a year-long protest against Faslane - the home of the UK's nuclear program.

Where the US has 10,000 or so warheads and Russia has 16,000 or so and even France has roughly 450, the UK has 200 nucelar weapons. Here is my question: Why?

Why do we need nuclear weapons that cost us billions of pounds in upkeep and act as a so called 'preventative' tool against "terror"? Did our nuclear capabilities stop the July 7th attacks - come to that what did being a nuclear superpower acheive for the States at 9/11?

Why do we need these disgusting weapons, capable of mass-indiscriminate killing? Is it to warn off countries such as Iran or North Korea? If so, then it would appear that they are not working very well....

Whilst I'm worried that N. Korea, Iran and - biggest worry of all - Israel possess nuclear arms, I don't want to live in a country where we embrace similar ideals about where to spend public money as Mr Kim Jong-Il.

I encourage any UK, like-minded individuals to look into the Faslane protest. Aside from that, what do people think about the contuing presence of nuclear warheads in our post cold war world?

If you want I'll take them off your hands and even pay you a few bucks for them.

All weapons are capable of 'mass-indiscriminate killing'. There wouldn't be much point to them if they weren't.

Maintaining an independent nuclear deterent is more important than ever as more and more unstable countries aquire them. True, we don't necessarily need huge stockpiles, but I think a couple of hundred warheads is a more than reasonable compromise.

If you want I'll take them off your hands and even pay you a few bucks for them.
You'll have to buy the submarines they're in as well, or it's no deal.

I'll throw in a couple of Harriers and a Bearskin to sweeten the deal.

Well, I think most of the countries under the protective umbrella of NATO don't need nuclear weapons, since the US' weapons are more than sufficient to defend against any attack by an aggressor. Russia's nuclear program is now secure and is one of the few parts of their military fully recovered to Western levels of security and technological advancement, so there's nothing to worry about from them.

Really, I think the only need for nuclear weapons is if you aren't allied with someone else who has them; however, that isn't going to stop people from getting them because nukes still equal power and attention on the world stage.

Whilst I'm worried that N. Korea, Iran and - biggest worry of all - Israel possess nuclear arms


Israel is worse than N Korea now? How?

And yes, the British nuclear weapons are a waste of time. I'm told that it would take several days to prepare the nukes for launch, which is about the amount of time it would take for the Americans to listen to the answering machine with the British asking for permission to fire them.

You'll have to buy the submarines they're in as well, or it's no deal.

I'll throw in a couple of Harriers and a Bearskin to sweeten the deal.

Submarines? This is getting expensive. I'll have to pass.

And yes, the British nuclear weapons are a waste of time. I'm told that it would take several days to prepare the nukes for launch, which is about the amount of time it would take for the Americans to listen to the answering machine with the British asking for permission to fire them.
You're told wrong.

Oh, and the most likely scenario for the British firing the missles wouldn't involve any 'permission' at all. Every Prime Minister, when taking office, has to sign a letter authorising their deployment if contact is lost with London. So, the time they're most likely to be fired is by the sub captain acting independently.

All weapons are capable of 'mass-indiscriminate killing'. There wouldn't be much point to them if they weren't.

Maintaining an independent nuclear deterent is more important than ever as more and more unstable countries aquire them. True, we don't necessarily need huge stockpiles, but I think a couple of hundred warheads is a more than reasonable compromise.


There's mass-indiscriminate killing a la Lebanon/Iraq bombings and then there's Hiroshima/Nagasawa...I think we can reliably tell the difference between the two.

What's the difference between one or two nuclear missiles and a couple of hundred? Surely the nature of the weapon is such that once used your not that likely to be using many more....Also what do you thing about the use of taxpayers money in terms of upkeep? Especially with the NHS in such dire straights. (Not that I'm suggesting privatising the nuclear program, can't think of anything more scary.)

Where the US has 10,000 or so warheads and Russia has 16,000 or so and even France has roughly 450, the UK has 200 nucelar weapons. Here is my question: Why?


Britain probably keeps its nukes to justify its position on the UN Security Council. If we did not have the nukes, it would make much more sense to give our seat to India, Brazil or one of the other up-coming nations petitioning for a seat.


Whilst I'm worried that N. Korea, Iran and - biggest worry of all - Israel possess nuclear arms, I don't want to live in a country where we embrace similar ideals about where to spend public money as Mr Kim Jong-Il.
?

Israel's nuclear weapons worry you more than those of North Korea and Iran? I can't see Israel nuking its neighbours, even if it does detest them. I can see both North Korea and Iran using their nukes.

You can give 'em to me if you like. I promise not to use them near anyone I know or care about.
Probably a better idea to keep them on the submarines, though.

The reason for us to have them is because otherwise we become the scrawny little kid who's playing with the bullies.
If nobody had any, well, look at all of history until 1945. There have been a few scuffles here or there since, but nothing to even come close to the 62 million (ish, according to Wikipedea) people killed in World War 2.

If anything, we need more Nuclear Capability, not less...

Having an independant Nuclear Deterent is vital to the security, and influence of our Nation.

There's mass-indiscriminate killing a la Lebanon/Iraq bombings and then there's Hiroshima/Nagasawa...I think we can reliably tell the difference between the two.

What's the difference between one or two nuclear missiles and a couple of hundred? Surely the nature of the weapon is such that once used your not that likely to be using many more....Also what do you thing about the use of taxpayers money in terms of upkeep? Especially with the NHS in such dire straights. (Not that I'm suggesting privatising the nuclear program, can't think of anything more scary.)
The point is that there are very good reasons for keeping nuclear weapons, even post cold war, but there are also very good reasons why they should never be used; as such, 200 is better than both 0 and 2,000.

The cost of nuclear weapons is always massively exagerated. The £20 billion figure that always gets thrown about in the papers is actually over a time span of about 20-40 years. It's a tiny proportion of Government spending.

Israel is worse than N Korea now? How?

And yes, the British nuclear weapons are a waste of time. I'm told that it would take several days to prepare the nukes for launch, which is about the amount of time it would take for the Americans to listen to the answering machine with the British asking for permission to fire them.

Worse in the way that I think of Israel as more likely to throw the switch with American support than other countries. For example, were Iran or N. Korea to do so then the US would destroy them - scary enough: but more scary is the fact that Israel could do so without repercussions from the West....I've not put that very well, sorry I've got the flu....

I know that the US and other posters may not care so much but yesterday marked the beginning of a year-long protest against Faslane - the home of the UK's nuclear program.

Where the US has 10,000 or so warheads and Russia has 16,000 or so and even France has roughly 450, the UK has 200 nucelar weapons. Here is my question: Why?

Why do we need nuclear weapons that cost us billions of pounds in upkeep and act as a so called 'preventative' tool against "terror"? Did our nuclear capabilities stop the July 7th attacks - come to that what did being a nuclear superpower acheive for the States at 9/11?

Why do we need these disgusting weapons, capable of mass-indiscriminate killing? Is it to warn off countries such as Iran or North Korea? If so, then it would appear that they are not working very well....

Whilst I'm worried that N. Korea, Iran and - biggest worry of all - Israel possess nuclear arms, I don't want to live in a country where we embrace similar ideals about where to spend public money as Mr Kim Jong-Il.

I encourage any UK, like-minded individuals to look into the Faslane protest. Aside from that, what do people think about the contuing presence of nuclear warheads in our post cold war world?


When random DNA stops forming into KIM ill Bung and the Mullahs in Iran and that whole lot of Jihadist ...call me about your nuke problems.

There's mass-indiscriminate killing a la Lebanon/Iraq bombings and then there's Hiroshima/Nagasawa...I think we can reliably tell the difference between the two.
Actually, the two nuclear weapons used on Japan killed fewer people than the firebombing.

What's the difference between one or two nuclear missiles and a couple of hundred? Surely the nature of the weapon is such that once used your not that likely to be using many more....Also what do you thing about the use of taxpayers money in terms of upkeep? Especially with the NHS in such dire straights. (Not that I'm suggesting privatising the nuclear program, can't think of anything more scary.)
Not all nukes are the Tsar Bomba, you know.
I'd say that the nukes are a far more sensible military investment than an island having a standing army.

You're told wrong.

Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom)

Submarines missiles would not be targeted, but rather at several days "notice to fire."

Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom)
Yes, really. Do you even understand what you just posted?

Yes, nuclear weapons are capable of causing mass destruction and death on a collosal scale, but the fact is: they don't. And it is not likely that they ever will.

Every nuclear armed state realises that as soon as one missile goes off, they all go off, and life on Earth is extinguished. This is why no-one will ever aggressively launch a nuclear missile, it is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and it is as safe as houses.

Indeed, while most states can be reasonably sure that their enemies will never nuke them, they are not sure enough to ever actually risk it. And this is why no two nuclear armed states have never been at a state of total war against each other (India and Pakistan have had some skirmishes, but nothing gets out of hand because each knows the other will destroy them if they feel desperate). In fact, I would argue that the sole reason there was not a Third World War was because the major powers had weapons capable of destroying the other side.

The risk of nuclear war is negligible: FACT.
Nuclear weapons have prevented open warfare: FACT.
The opinions of groups like CND are alarmist and intentionally ill-informed: FACT.

All weapons are capable of 'mass-indiscriminate killing'. There wouldn't be much point to them if they weren't.

Right and wrong. Any weapon can kill millions of people, but only a Nuke can kill millions of people in the span of a few seconds. Nuclear weapons are far more destructive than anything on the planet as far as weapons go.