It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Tony Blair has told MPs it would be "unwise and dangerous" for the UK to give up its nuclear weapons.
The prime minister outlined plans to spend up to £20bn on a new generation of submarines for Trident missiles.
He said submarine numbers may be cut from four to three, while the number of nuclear warheads will be cut by 20%.
Mr Blair said although the Cold War had ended the UK needed nuclear weapons as no-one could be sure another nuclear threat would not emerge in the future.
He said the options of changing to a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system had been considered and ruled out.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said proper consideration of all relevant factors could only be made, if the decision was postponed until 2014.
agreed with Mr Blair's position "on substance and on timing".
US diplomat calls for Iran action
A senior US diplomat has hit out at Iran and called on members of the UN Security Council to agree on economic sanctions against Tehran.
At a summit in Brussels, Nicholas Burns called Iran "the major disruptive, negative force in the Middle East".
The five permanent Security Council members plus Germany are to meet on Tuesday to discuss a sanctions package.
The council recommended sanctions after Iran failed to comply with a deadline for refusing to end uranium enrichment.
...
Speaking to reporters at the meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Mr Burns, an under secretary of state, criticised Iran over more than its nuclear programme.
...
"What does Iran stand for? Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace and solving everything through the barrel of a gun."
Source
Originally posted by Ste2652
I have to say I'm quite happy with the result. Yes, in an ideal world we wouldn't need nuclear weapons but sadly we don't live in an ideal world.
Originally posted by Ste2652
And also, the ultimate decision as to whether the Trident missiles should be launched rests solely on the Prime Minister's shoulders - in an emergency (which is really the only time the UK could really use the weapons without extreme consequences against Britain - say, if someone had launched a nuclear weapon at the United Kingdom or had somehow managed to be in a position to invade), would he or she even have time to consult the Americans? I don't think so.
He put the cost of the new system at between £15bn and £20bn. But there would also be running costs of more than £1.5bn a year, raising the total cost to more than £65bn over 30 years.Source
I'm sure it seems to Tehran that the western world solves it's problems 'through the barrel of a gun'.
Five of the six countries imposing sanctions on Iran have nuclear weapon arsenals.
I don't see how we can dictate to other countries that they can't develop their own nuclear deterants, it is complete hypocrisy.
I heard this somewhere, I can't remember where: all we showed Iran and NK when we invaded Iraq was that if you haven't actually got WMD you'll be invaded and deposed.
We'll never live in an ideal world unless we have idealistic goals.
If someone launched a nuclear weapon at us, which would ultimately target the general population, what would be the point in then targetting the general population of the aggressive country.
If a force was in a position to invade us then wouldn't there be other weapons available to prevent them attacking us?
I'm struggling but I can't think of a situation where blowing alot of stuff up and spreading alot of radiation can help our country.
Although I can see the value in having nuclear weapons as a deterrant, I think the cost far outweighs this one positive effect of our nuclear weapons systems.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
At least by having nuclear weapons we can negotiate them away. But at least under gfad’s “standby nuclear power idea” politics.abovetopsecret.com... there would be no need to invest billons in an expensive knew nuclear missile.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
The Romans solved problems at the end of an arrow, the Victorians at the end of gun, the West with a missile. Every successful humane civilisation there ever was has solved its problems at the end of some sort of weapon. After all isn’t that how power and diplomacy works? The weapons are one ingredient, saying “now tell me if I don’t use the weapons…” is the diplomacy.
Why what millennium do you think we’re in, The year Thirty Thousand or something? Is there some other futuristic way you have to share with us?
Originally posted by Liberal1984
It’s called “diplomatic pressure” (and will be diplomatic so long as weapons aren’t used).
Originally posted by Liberal1984
If it wasn’t hypocrisy it would be too late; wouldn’t it?
Originally posted by Liberal1984
We'll never live in an ideal world unless we have idealistic goals.
Actually we’ll probably loose control of the world and be dominated by it (non democratic states) if we are idealistic.
What we need is realistic goals with pragmatic thinking behind them; there’s a big difference between creativity and idealism. Idealism is always the excuse for why nice ideas failed; but pragmatic or creative thinking is always the reason for why ideas have succeeded. This is a general but pretty rock solid fact (demonstrated by everyday by equally broad and general accounts of history).
Originally posted by Liberal1984
I'm struggling but I can't think of a situation where blowing alot of stuff up and spreading alot of radiation can help our country.
Will my 4 above reasons sufficient? -
1. Revenge (it might be popular if most of London has just been killed).
2. To weaken the enemies war machine
3. Prove-have the existence of MAD (which though it sounds mad actually prevented a war the size of world war two, with the Soviet Union; possibly on more than occasion)
4. A combination of all the above (as well as any number of other factors) (like the general principles of Survival).
Originally posted by Liberal1984
If a force was in a position to invade us then wouldn't there be other weapons available to prevent them attacking us?
Yes...
Originally posted by Liberal1984
...but fortunately (although very unfortunately when it comes to the matter of getting rid of nuclear weapons) nobody has ever developed a weapon more powerful than the atomic bomb. Therefore it would be very easy for a rogue nation to outdo the do even the collective power of the West if nobody else had nuclear weapons. This of course would never happen; or at least it seems extremely unlikely we would be stupid-(idealistic) enough to let it happen.
There are a lot of conventional weapons you can blow out of the sky with an atomic weapon (electromagnetic pulse for instance extends way out of the bombs radius and can drains electricity even from batteries).
Originally posted by Liberal1984
What do we have to do? Wait several weeks for our wretched submarine to change course.
If we don't have the nuclear weapons available at the touch of a button then there are even fewer reasons in having any nuclear capabilities.
No humane civilisation has solved it's problems with violence.
I threaten to beat up someone with my baseball bat unless they do what I want. They do it, so I don't use force, is that diplomatic. No, it's blackmail.
And if the person then tried to pick up a baseball bat as well, and five of my mates come round and tell him that if he does he'll be battered, then I think the individual would feel aggrevied at the hypocrisy of our arguments.
We need to set examples through action rather than dictating action.
EMP's can be created independently of a nuclear strike. Couldn't the money be used to develop something to prevent nuclear bombs hitting our or any country rather than having aload of nuclear bombs ourselves. This would remove the risk of any country having nuclear weapons as long as we provided everyone with protection.
Who would this revenge be directed against? Not the leaders of the aggresors army because all a nuke could do would be to cause more indiscriminate killing.
We have many other ways of doing this without using nuclear waeapons.
How can the prinicple of survival (?!?) be justified to bomb aload of innocent civilians of a foriegn country? How is that going to ensure our survival.
We shouldn't have a nuclear detterant if it can then be used as an 'attacking' weapon.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
So for the time being I stick by the idea that nuclear aircraft would be better because…
1. I hate nuclear-powered submarines
2. Wonder about the greatness of fossil fuel powered ones
3. And dislike this missile system cost (especially if we really could get one or two aircraft carriers out of the same or similar amount of money, spent on my approach.
4. Agree that we should a nuclear deterrent; but aren’t that worried about acting independently of America just yet.
However I suppose it’s not a greatly bad thing we’ll be having nuclear submarines. It’s just annoying to me if we are dependant on something which creates its own nuclear waste to carry our nuclear deterrent (which as the enemy says “God willing” will hopefully never have to be used).
Ste2652 Thanks for pointing that range point out (I overlooked it).
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]