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.

 

Why Doesn't the UK Become a "Virtually Nuclear" Nation?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
During the current debate on whether to replace the trident nuclear fleet I read about a very interesting alternative which has proved succesful in other countries without neccesitating nuclear proliferation.

The concept is that a country can become "virtually nuclear". ie. it has the nuclear materials, the plans and sufficient workers and industry to build nuclear weapons but doesn't do so and doesn't have any in its arsenal. The country could become a nuclear power again within a year if not months with a sufficient plan.

This has worked for several developed countries, mainly Canada, Japan and Germany and to a lesser extent Italy, Lithuania, Holland and Norway. None of these countries have any nuclear weapons and are all signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Japan has the ability to be in possesion of nuclear weapons of its own making within only 6 months and all the others in between 1 and 2 years. Is this not a suitable nuclear deterrant in the current world climate?

There is no reason to spend billions on replacing the trident fleet just for the sake of having the status symbol of being a nuclear power. 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]

[edit on 4/12/06 by gfad]




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Given that none of this renewal or replacement is liable to happen for almost 20yrs (and when in place they are supposed to be on station until at least around 2050) I just don't think it's wise to imagine an indefinite continuation of today's relatively benign circumstances and plan on that basis......

......and I honestly can't see any British Gov planning or acting on the basis of our present relatively benign international situation as anything other than a wholly irresponsible, blinkered and irrational optimism
ie utterly unfit to be our government.

To illustrate the point look back at the vast changes there have been during the last 20 - 46yrs.

Blair was also 100% correct today when he said that despite the enormous British moves towards nuclear disarmament - the British missile warhead count on the Trident has never utilised the max capacity of each missile and has been reduced; the RAF's air delivered nuclear bombs have gone entirely along with any tactical nuclear missile element of the British Army - there are no credible signs of a single nuclear nation moving towards unilateral disarmament.
In fact the signs all point to an increase in number of nuclear-capable nations in the coming years/decades.
(and an increase in the number of nuclear armed nations is exactly what we have seen over the last 20 - 50yrs)

It's quite true that imagining a credible scenario where nuclear weapons are used is difficult if not impossible.......and yet they do exist and they have been used before.

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).

It's a nice idea, kind of a 'nuclear capacity lite' but I think it exposes to the country to a situation where any form of 'nuclear cover' that we needed was always something never immediately available.
I just don't think that is an acceptable risk.

It's also worth considering that some of those nations you have named as taking that position are only able to do so or only feel 'comfortable' in doing so because nations like the UK hold these weapons in the circumstances that we do.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

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]


Russia's is ridiculously larger, with approximately 20,000 warheads. The United States has about half that. To be fair to both nations, they're gradually reducing the number of warheads/bombs they have (At its peak, the Soviet Union had 45,000 warheads!
).

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. The system will also probably be delivered by aircraft (since it'd take way too much time to construct missiles and submarines, unless you had built some subs capable of being converted quickly and already had some missiles stockpiled somewhere), which are much easier to shoot down than a missile (missiles are much faster and have multiple warheads). 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.

As Mr. Blair said when addressing the House, we can't predict what the world's going to be like in twenty or thirty years. The BBC Ten O'Clock News suggested that China, North Korea, Russia and Iran could all become serious threats to Britain in the next few decades, and these are only the ones we can predict. We didn't think Argentina would invade the Falkland Islands in the 1980s, but lo and behold, General Galtieri and his cohorts come ashore in 1982. A prime example of why we must be prepared. (I'm not saying Argentina should have been nuked - I'm saying that we do get things wrong sometimes, and we need to be prepared for that)



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
But can really use "its an uncertain future" as justification for continuing the nuclear arms race. Surely if we can we can use that as a justification for absolutely ANYTHING! I need to see more. I accept that there have been enormous changes in politics in the last 20-40 years and no doubt there will be in the coming 20-40 years, but why dont we say "lets bomb every non-ally country because its an uncertain future and they could attack us later on"? Because its unethical and not fair, just like nuclear weapons.


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.


I dont think that can be a criticism. I'd like to imagine that the decision to nuke another country is not a hair-trigger one. Surely there should be planning for month (time to build the nuclear weapons), not just nuke them in response to some attack or nuke a rogue state for what is believed to be a stat-sponsored terrorist attack.


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.


Japan has never felt the need to gain nuclear arms even through the toughest periods of its politics with its close (and nuclear armed nation) China. I dont see why this should change with North Korea.


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).


Yeah fair enough we have a smaller nuclear arsenal than we have had before but we could be doing so much. We could be leading the unilateral disarmament of nuclear states. There is no comic book villain in his hideaway waiting for us all to disarm so he can attack us, and we should be doing more. If each of the current nuclear powers refuse to disarm because the others aren't of course we are going to get an increase in the number of nuclear states.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
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.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by timeless test]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Because its unethical and not fair, just like nuclear weapons.

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?



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

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?


You bring up some interesting points.

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.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

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.

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

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.


I didn't 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.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

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.


Surely designing a new delievery system and making it viable and ready at a few months nottice would be much cheaper than the few tens of billions of pounds being proposed for the trident replacement.

Sorry for the (very) late reply!



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I didnt create his thread to discuss disarmament of firearms, its to discuss a particular stratergy of nuclear disarmament.

Yes and I'm giving you a reason for not disarming but if reasons not wished then so be it.


I dont know where you live but do you own a gun?

Look up the name caledonia or the name "sutherland" and you'll find where I'm from. As for guns no but I am trained in them.



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.

Yes because this is world wide issue because we (the UK) are defending our empire and the rest of NATO. I also doubt UK statistics would be at all 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.

Yes in britain we dont but frankly I dont see a decent reason for us to ban our military from using a nuclear weapon when you feel fine with them using small arms and tanks.


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.

Yes and we have changed military strategies since 1945 otherwise the british army would still be using "gun groups" and "rifle groups" and the RAF would be using carpet bombing.


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.

Sorry 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. Britain no longer has any long range weaponry apart from trident and frankly our ability to fight any country is severly limited.


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.

A country will think twice before engaging in open war with a country that has nuclear weapons, due to the fact that if they invade they will meet a firey inferno. Also when did you last hear of two nuclear powers engaged in open war?
No I am asserting that a country will not engage in open warfare with us on our own soil if we can destroy thier cities in a flash, where do you get this idea about robbers and petrol stations?
Also it reduces the amount of fire arms being used in war by preventing war itself, if the enemy believes you are able to destroy his or her home and you have no chance of stopping it then they will not attack. Hence...deterrant.



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.

I'm sorry but I'm just against removing our only remaining offensive weapon in a wartime situation.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Its interesting to note that while Parliament is at present conducting a limited debate concerning the construction of new weapons platforms for Trident missiles, the Ministry of Defence is busy re-classifying previously Open Government files concerning previous UK nuclear deterrent forces.

An article in yesterday's Guardian reveals that Lord Owen has been prevented from accessing documents concerning Trident's predecessor - Polaris. The papers were withdrawn from the National Archive at Kew and have been 'Retained by Department', in this case the MOD.

The documents are said to reveal that during the mid seventies MOD officials kept from Government Ministers the defects and escalating costs of the Polaris system. In particular they didn't want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healy, to discover that Polaris was unable to penetrate the Moscow ABM system.

-----------------------
"Some documents were withdrawn from the National Archives when he asked to see them. Lord Owen wanted to see them to help back up his case that the government should consider placing nuclear warheads on cruise missiles, potentially a much cheaper option than the intercontinental ballistic Trident system the government wants to renew.

He said Tony Blair argued that Britain's nuclear missiles must be able to hit any target in the world. By implication, that meant the ability to penetrate Moscow's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) shield, and any future ABM system China may build around Beijing.

The documents withdrawn by the government reveal how officials kept vital information about the nuclear deterrent from ministers. Field Marshal Michael Carver, then chief of the defence staff, admitted in 1975 that Britain's missiles could not hit Moscow. Yet this information was withheld from ministers, chiefly because they did not want the chancellor, Denis (now Lord) Healey, to know."

Full Guardian article

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



These documents were needed by Lord Owen to back up his case that the Government should seek to use cruise missiles as a nuclear weapons delivery system, rather than the vastly more expensive Trident system.


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


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.

Only one semi-official UK Government statement relevant to this issue springs to my mind - Jeff Hoons statement in 2002 that: "The UK is prepared to use nuclear weapons against rogue states such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field".

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.



zero lift



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

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.

Because I know that even politions have limits, they may be uncaring heartless monsters but they wouldnt be stupid enough to unleash a nucelar strike on ANY country never mind one with nuclear weapons. Once those are released the gloves are off and the gauntlets come on, I trust the men and women in blue sitting below the ocean surface more than I trust a man who hasnt the courage to defend himself.





So I feel its safe to assert that the UK would use nuclear weapons even if the UK mainland was not itself attacked.

How can you suppose that? What possible reason can you suppose that we would launch first? We have a limited supply of weapons and a limited supply of launch vehicles and we are not going to waste it by "getting even" with rogue countries over a few hundred dead troops. Thats how the PM and his council will look at it.


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.

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.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I suppose all advanced industrial nations have the capability to develop nukes. Becoming a "virtual" nuke-nation strikes me as bonkers! You could maintain the capability, designs and thelike to quickly deploy a weapon, but what about the delivery systems?

The Trident SSBMs are at sea all the time to maintain the stock of trained personnel, the doctrine and the mentality.

Regards



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

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.


I think the reason he says that is because revealing the situations in which the government will launch its nuclear arsenal puts the deterrent's credibility in jeopardy and it gives potential enemies the chance to push the UK around without fear of a nuclear strike.

As for the Queen and going to war... it's actually the Prime Minister who decides using what is called the Royal Prerogative - these are a series of reserved powers which are in the hands of the monarch in principle but in practice are actually in the hands of the Prime Minister and (in some cases) the Cabinet. These include the power to dissolve Parliament (the Queen always does this on the advice of the Prime Minister), the awarding of honours (lists of those to be honoured are drawn up by the government), issuing passports (which is done by the Home Office on behalf of the Queen), and the expulsion of a foreigner (again done by the Home Office). Going to war is again the decision of the Prime Minister, and this power is used rarely anyway - we didn't declare war on Iraq (either time), Afghanistan or Argentina. Nuclear weapons fall into a similar category - their use is ordered by the Prime Minister, and him/her alone. In addition, it was revealed that the Prime Minister writes a set of orders for the crew of each Trident submarine should contact with the UK be lost, or the Prime Minister be killed etc. This might be to consult another government official, sail to a friendly port (apparently we have agreements with the US, Australia etc. to shelter our nuclear subs if there is an emergency), launch their missiles or allow the submarine captain and crew to make their own decision as to their best course.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

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.


What you are saying is absolutely absurd! There are plenty of countries in the world who still "have a say" without the need for nuclear weapons, Japan for example, the country that inspired me to start this thread.

You are right that we dont have armed forces large enough to start a war anymore, anyone sane would think that was a good thing. We are much smaller, population wise than the countries that you list and have none of the threats that some of them have. You also seem to be implying there is some sort of risk of us being invaded, you are totally delusional, this could never happen.

If we gave up nuclear weapons but withheld the ability to possess them within a certain timeframe we will remain economically and technologically strong, two things which matter much more in the current world climate than militarily strong.

People seem to be arguing for nuclear weapons as though there is some adversary on the horizon. This is entirely fictional. The same argument was used when Trident was first brought in, and as it turned out we have never used them, in fact we havnt even come close to using them. Nuclear weapons used to be some sort of metaphorical posing pouch, but even that reason has gone since the end of the cold war!



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

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.


It's not conjecture the Japanese debate on going nuclear is ccommon knowledge do a search in the New York Times Archives or something.

As for power - absolute power is more important than influence. The EU has influence, but also is in a state of denial to its actual power - Russia has recently been showing them who is boss by a power display of who controls their energy resources.

Foreign Policy Journal engages several of these topics.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join