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.
Originally posted by gfad
We all know that there is little chance of the USA giving up its ridiculously large arsenal but we could at least set an example for other counties to give up theirs.
[edit on 4/12/06 by gfad]
I'm wary of this 'virtually nuclear' status because it really does need time to start up (and in periods of tension and potential war time isn't always a luxury you have), and even then there's a lot to get done.
Quite honestly, depending on what North Korea does in the next few years, it wouldn't surprise me if Japan began to gear up towards becoming a nuclear power.
I'm very glad to see the UK continue - or even lead - the movement towards ever smaller nuclear forces (which has been a recognisable factor in almost all the nuclear states) but certainly not to give them up entirely - even if we could create them anew in 12mths or so
(which I'd say was optimistic once a few years had gone by and the expertise and depth of infrastructure had begun to dissolve).
Originally posted by gfad
Because its unethical and not fair, just like nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Just like small arms?
I suggest you watch "lord of war" , it highlights the real WMD's.
There have been over 35 million AK family weapons made between 1945 and 1990.
Over a million people are injured by guns every year and over 200,000 people are killed by small arms evert year.
More civilians own guns than governments by a large majority, 59% of theworlds small arms owener ship are by civilians.
Yet only only 214,000 people have died from nuclear weapons fired in anger, now tell me which one of the two is the more dangerous?
Originally posted by gfad
No one is going to convince the government to force the army to give up its guns, but nuclear disarmament is an actual possibility. War is horrific but real, whereas the nuclear threat is horrific but mainly fictional.
Secondly, i'd guess that a sizable proportion of gun deaths every year are the deaths of military personnel, maybe not a majority but a large amount. These should surely cannot be compared to civilian deaths caused by nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons directly target civilians.
Finally, you kind of dismiss your own point by showing that the majority of guns are owned by civilians not the military. I really created this thread to discuss the possibility of the government and military deactivationg their nuclear arsenal instead of renewing it, not to discuss firearms laws.
Originally posted by devilwasp
But armies dont control the majority of weapons, civilians do. How can we (civilians) put pressure on the men in uniform to lay down thier arms when we refuse to do so ourselves?
...
Nuclear weapons also directly target military targets as well (hence why most nuclear missile silos and airbases are hardened against EMP and are NBC capable.) Unless you mean in war I doubt it, when an army is at peace its less likely to kill its own members than it is in a time of war (atleast within the western world) Nuclear weapons would kill just as many civlians as it would military personel if used since I doubt the military has anysort of large bunkers able to hold an entire division of soldiers in a time of war.
...
I dont, I am showing that nuclear weapons are overshadowed by the real WMD's such as small arms. Those nuclear weapons stay in their silos until judgement day comes while the small arms kill hundreds yearly, how many nuclear weapons have been used in war? 2 is the answer, how many small arms are used in war? Thousands, IMO keeping a nuclear deterant lowers the chance of small arms being used in a time of war due to the fact that a nuclear strike would decimate all sides in a conflict.
Originally posted by timeless test
Surely the problem with this stance is not the production of warheads which would, in all probability not to be too time consuming once you mave the material and have practiced a few times as the UK certainly has but rather, the delivery system.
Japan has the advantage of a domestic space program and, therefore, viable ballistic missiles whilst the UK does not, neither do we have an air launched stand off option. I guess Tomahawks would be an option for close(ish) quarters delivery but you still have to get them to theatre and surface ships are mighty vulnerable.
It sounds like a cop out decision to me.
Originally posted by gfad
I didnt create his thread to discuss disarmament of firearms, its to discuss a particular stratergy of nuclear disarmament.
I dont know where you live but do you own a gun?
You are quoting worldwide statistics while I am talking about the UK government policy. Why dont you dig out the statistics regarding gun ownership and gun deaths in the UK, Im sure they would be more relevant.
When you pose the question "How can we put pressure on the men in uniform to lay down thier arms when we refuse to do so ourselves?" I dont know who you are including in "we" but the vast majority of people in this country dont own a gun and probably have never seen one.
In the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the american governement purposely targeted industrial targets surrounded by large and densely populated urban areas. The aim of this was, explicitly, to kill as many innocent people as possible to create such a massive psychological effect as to end the war. The most vital military areas and bases were rejected as targets because not enough civilians would be killed in the attack.
Im of the opinion that this tactic would be reproduced if a nuclear attack were carried out today, perhaps in conjunction with attacks on nuclear bases to prevent retaliation. The killing of innocent civilians, not military personel, is an intrinsic property of the use of nuclear weapons.
Please could you expand your point on how nuclear weapons prevent the proliferation and use of small arms? You seem to be asserting that nuclear weapons are a deterant to a small-time robber who targets petrol stations or a teenage gang member. This is obviously delusional. In a war-time situation I also dont think the threat of nuclear weapons reduces the amount of firearms used by the armies, I just dont think its a major consideration.
I can see the points you are trying to make regarding firearms compared to nuclear weapons but I really dont see how they are relevant to my OP regarding a structure for nuclear disarmament.
Devilwasp wroteSorry but for our missiles to be flying it would require our cities to be burning, would you rather allow us to strike back and stop any more attacks or would you prefer us not to have the ability to fight back
Originally posted by zero lift
I don't know how you can be so certain that this is correct Devilwasp, as the UK Government have never officially commented about UK nuclear weapons release procedure, including grounds for their release.
So I feel its safe to assert that the UK would use nuclear weapons even if the UK mainland was not itself attacked.
Mr Hoon later refused to rule out the use of UK nuclear weapons as a "first strike", thus encouraging speculation that UK nuclear weapons policy had changed to include pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Because hoon was and still is a loon, hence the name. He has no authority to make the claim that we would fire first or even if we would fire...its up to the PM, his council and most likely the queen. Afterall she is the one who has the final say in war and peace in this country if you had forgotten.
Originally posted by Odium
Getting rid of our Nuclear Weapons will be the last nail in the coffin, if we desire to have any International Influence. In fact, doing so we might as well step down from the United Nation's security council because nobody will take us seriously any longer.
The U.K. can not win a war with a force similar to our own any longer, we just do not have the man power without the Empire. Thus in a World where China, Russia, U.S.A, soon India and Brazil will all be looking to grab as much power as possible we will be forced out without the means to defend our interests and to protect our Nation.
Nuclear Weapons are needed so we still have a say in the World.
They are also needed to protect us from any external threat - no nation will invade while we can destroy them.
Furthermore, the Tridant System is a fantastic idea which worked well. Nobody aside from the Navy, know where they are so if we are attacked they can attack back easily enough or get into a position to do such a thing. This forces negotiation with hostile nations and protects the people.
Originally posted by The_Investor
I hate to tell you this gfad but Japan is seriously considering Nuclear Weapons.
These countries you mention without Nuclear Weapons or dilvery capacities such as ICBMs and SLBMs are only "big sayers" because the Super Powers let them have a say. What could the world do to stop the US from say - isolating Japan from the rest of the world? Nothing. Only Russia could challenge that position.
Originally posted by gfad
Originally posted by The_Investor
I hate to tell you this gfad but Japan is seriously considering Nuclear Weapons.
These countries you mention without Nuclear Weapons or dilvery capacities such as ICBMs and SLBMs are only "big sayers" because the Super Powers let them have a say. What could the world do to stop the US from say - isolating Japan from the rest of the world? Nothing. Only Russia could challenge that position.
Do you have a source for that information on Japan?
I'd like to know how you think the super-powers "let them have a say". What influence does the US or Russia have over countries joining the UN or security council? Also how could the US isolate japan?
Your post is absolute conjecture with nothing to back it up. Its this conjecture, based on nothing but speculation, that means that no one disarms their nuclear weapons.