Originally posted by Black Star UchessMaybe they could bring Iran into the EU?
I will humour your comments on Iran .
I think these rogue states provide a good reason for Europe to maintain a form of nuclear deterrent.
But the UK doing exactly what it tells Iran not to doesn't help. If Europe consolidates it's systems then you have: The same level of defence, non proliferation, a much lower cost and an even better reason to lobby Iran others to stop.
Originally posted by generalissimoand Bangladesh too; and don't forget Cambodia (or Kampuchea or whatever they call it these days).
Considering the newfangled eagerness to allow turkey to join in I don't see why Iran should be excluded.
In fact, we could get hundreds and hundreds of countries to join.
Maybe they could call it...
hmmm...
the "United Nations"? 😉
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA free trade zone with a single currency, financial obligations of members and a central component vested with some authority in matters including anti-trust, human rights, etc.
Anyway, since the EU is mainly just a free trade zone, I don't see how one could object to it expanding - at least in principle.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFwell, i might have been unfair to FMF, you have bugged me in other threads but the above point is interesting - it should be part of NATO , or a shared EU system.
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, b ...[text shortened]... st threats from other nations or blocs then it should be a coordinated European or NATO effort.
agree Iran is relevant but it was more the huge cost the UK has to pay for it when it could have the same protection for much less I was getting at.