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.

 

Brown pledge to cut Trident

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Brown pledge to cut Trident


www.independent.co.uk

The leaders of the world's greatest powers, including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are set tomorrow to endorse President Barack Obama's ambitious goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. According to the final draft of a resolution to be put to a rare summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the leaders will resolve "to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co .uk
www.google.com




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I really didn't expect to be hearing this news any time soon. Not long ago they were talking of a trident replacement and how much it would cost, then decided to upgrade and modernize.

I know reducing the number of subs from 4 to 3 is not a huge amount, still I think its a step in the right direction.


"If we are serious about the ambition of a nuclear-free world we will need statesmanship, not brinkmanship," he will say, according to an extract from his speech provided to journalists travelling with him for this week's U.N. meetings in New York and the Group of 20 meeting of rich and developing countries in Pittsburgh.


I don't really ever think we will see a nuclear-free world, yet at the same time maybe this shows they are really serious about taking moves to reduce nuclear arms. They are clearly a huge global threat and I don't see any good coming from there use, maybe the future is not so bleak after all and a move like this will set an example to other states. Nobody can win a nuclear war, lets hope more countries realise this and start reducing numbers too.


www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I dont know about this. Even if every country did get rid of their Nukes, I still doubt that it will eliminate ALL nukes.
IMO one nukes is just as bad as 5 nukes.
Will it make it a safer world? IMO, no.
Let me explain my opinion.
Why do we have Nukes? Easy one...To remain the Dominant Power.
What happens if we get rid of Nukes? Will there still be a dominant power?
Well, IMO, I think if we get rid of nukes, all it is going to do is pave the way for other "massive" weapons to be made.
Is killing a village of people with a nuke any different then killing a village of people with conventional bombs? To the planet, yes, but to people, no.
I really dont think that we will ever get rid of Nucleor weapons because quite frankly, it would give up the main strategic power that certain groups have over another. Kind of that "Well if you nuke us, we will Nuke you type of mentality". That, in and of itself kind of keeps us safe(I know that sounds absurd) but it does make a little sense eventhough it is still death all around if used.

Nukes are scary, but Ihave reason to believe that since technology and science has been getting better over the years, the nuke will be replaced by something that makes those nukes seem like kids play.
I also think that if we are so willingly to give up such a major part of our aresonal, that there must be a reason(a bigger weapon perhaps).

Maybe Im wrong. WhichI can guarantee I will hear from almost immediately. Just stating my opinion. Dont kill me.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I totally agree, to rid the world of nuclear weapons completely is not possible. Somebody somewhere will always have the money, knowledge and capability to posses them. Reducing the amount to the best we can though seems like a logical and sensible thing for the world to do. I am sure they have something bigger, better and more deadly already built and ready to go.

I think in all fairness the reason they would use conventional weapons rather than nukes is because of the profits involved. How much money is made by arms manufactures equipping a country over a long period of time, my guess is far to much to justify vaporizing the enemy in one strike.

Also this could be a very good indicator of the state of finance in this country, maybe they cant afford to keep maintaining the whole trident fleet. Money is needed elsewhere for other conflicts, remember how they were struggling to give soldiers the correct equipment because of cash?




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


You have a good point. Money Is the root of all evil afterall.
Imwondering, if they didindeedhave bigger andbetter weapons, if they found out a way to do so without ruining the environment around it. If that has been done, I feel bad for anyone on the bad side of whomever posses such a weapon.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


In the end, whoever has the Nukes will rule. China will not disarm. Russia will not disarm. If we do?

Obama is fast becoming known for his whoppers. Is this yet another one?

I do not think that he will ever get Congress to go along. They have elections to think of.

A nuclear free world, a peaceful world is a wonderful dream, but still a dream that will never be realized until the all of the earth is at peace. I don't see it happening in this generation.

China will see this as an opportunity to increase their power.

Russia will see this as an opportunity to increase their power.

What is the point? Something is not right here? Something is very wrong here.

My guess is he can promise what he wants to improve his image knowing it will never actually materialize. The American Voter is that dumb I think. People will fall for it even though the Senate will never ratify this.




top topics
 
2

log in

join