There's been a few debates on here about Trident. I'm in favour of the EU having nuclear weapons. But it seems a ridiculous waste of money England & France having separate ones.
There should be a consolidated European system, not proliferation. The UK going it alone when there is no compelling need is ridiculous. We might as well put Kim Il-sung on our stamps, the amount of GDP we will need to put into it.
As for why Europe needs nuclear weapons, just my simplistic view: From 1900 - 1950 Europe was a fascist hell hole. The UK was fascist, running its young men in-front of machine guns, Italy was fascist, Spain, and Germany turned to the nazis.
The atom bombs inventors though they would work on game theory: Rather then slaughtering the countries young on battlefields they said; No! If you want war, you can have it at a press of a button, which will annihilate everything! Hoping they would end this barbaric stupidity.
An eerie 30 years of relative peace followed. If the USA & USSR had gone at one another with the same fascist blinkeredness that Germany & England managed there wouldn't be much left. Due to the atom bomb they couldn't. So I think we still need them to keep the peace.
Rant over, your thoughts?
Originally posted by Black Star UchessSounds basically right; except that I'm not sure the USA and USSR would have gotten involved in a protracted war even without the MAD that nukes brought.
There's been a few debates on here about Trident. I'm in favour of the EU having nuclear weapons. But it seems a ridiculous waste of money England & France having separate ones.
There should be a consolidated European system, not proliferation. The UK going it alone when there is no compelling need is ridiculous. We might as well put Kim Il-sung ...[text shortened]... they couldn't. So I think we still need them to keep the peace.
Rant over, your thoughts?
Originally posted by Black Star UchessSome people wonder whether a nuclear armed Iran will finally establish a 'guaranteed peace' of the same kind in the Middle East.
An eerie 30 years of relative peace followed. If the USA & USSR had gone at one another with the same fascist blinkeredness that Germany & England managed there wouldn't be much left. Due to the atom bomb they couldn't. So I think we still need them to keep the peace.
Originally posted by whodeyDestroyed by what? We're basically discussing "MAD" here. It's worked since 1945. If ever there were a defensive deployment of nuclear deterrent, the one that Iran - which has been repeatedly threatened with nuclear strikes by the U.S. - might be about to implement, then this is it. You think Iran is going to first-strike-nuke Israel? Seems ludicrous and a bizarre reading of geopolitics.
Sure, once Israel is destroyed.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamEvery single time, when asked if they will attack Iran with nuclear weapons, they say "We're taking nothing off the table". That is wielding the nuclear threat, as clear as day.
"repeatedly threatened with nuclear strikes by the U.S.".
OK I'll bite, when did that happen?
Originally posted by FMFNo.
Every single time, when asked if they will attack Iran with nuclear weapons, they say "We're taking nothing off the table". That is wielding the nuclear threat, as clear as day.
That NEVER happened.
The US has never said they were considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
Ever.
Originally posted by sh76sh76, true
Sounds basically right; except that I'm not sure the USA and USSR would have gotten involved in a protracted war even without the MAD that nukes brought.
There was talk a while back of the UK & France sharing their Navy. Seemed to die down.
But with trident, which will hopefully never be used there's no point in having 2 systems - & the UK indebting itself even further.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThey say - and say it quite repeatedly - "We're taking nothing off the table". That is an explicit nuclear threat. Every bit as explicit as nuclear deterrence through having the bomb. Could scarcely be less equivocal whether you realise or not, Sam.
No.
That NEVER happened.
The US has never said they were considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
Ever.
Another sideline in this which amused me;
BAE systems who make the submarines & plan to charge the govt £95bn for them have got a contract to make payment security / anti fraud systems for RBS, who received an £80bn bail out from the govt. Between the two I think they've eaten 10% of our GDP, and now they work together.
Originally posted by Black Star UchessYou compartmentalize all you want. Fine by me.
FMF kindly make your own thread on iran if you wish to discuss that....
My point is about 'Mutually Assured Destruction', as raised by your OP.
Iran - in view of it being pointedly in U.S. crosshairs, and surrounded by nuclear armed states - probably could deter attacks by way of MAD and that's most likely their thinking if they are indeed seeking the bomb.
As for the U.K. I think MAD does not apply and that having an independent nuclear arsenal has got more to do with being a declining middle sized power with yellowing wallmaps covered in red bits and 1944-45 on its mind, than any realistic appraisal of its gravity in international affairs and military contingencies.
Trident is a bit of silly, anachronistic, billy-big-boots posturing. If there is to be a nuclear deterrent against threats from other nations or blocs then it should be a coordinated European or NATO effort.
If you want to discuss the U.K. nuclear deterrent without reference to the U.S. and to current unfolding narratives and issues of first strike, deterrence and perceived threats, as we see in Iran and Israel, then I suggest you try a thread title that uses the word 'vacuum', as in 'Let's talk about the U.K. nuclear deterrent in a vacuum' or words to that effect. 🙂
Originally posted by FMFOne of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter [2006], calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.
They say - and say it quite repeatedly - "We're taking nothing off the table". That is an explicit nuclear threat. Every bit as explicit as nuclear deterrence through having the bomb. Could scarcely be less equivocal whether you realise or not, Sam.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?currentPage=2