Will trident lead to an independant Scotland?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Are nuclear missiles illegal and immoral because they can wipe out millions of people?

On a scale then -- starting with weapons that can wipe out 1 person, 10 people, 1000 people, on up to a million people, etc. -- where is the cut-point for an illegal and immoral weapon?

Or are ALL weapons illegal and immoral, and nuclear weapons are just more so?

Nukes are immoral because they specifically target civilians.
Leaders will be in bunkers and the rich in society will be there visiting them.

So they're a waste of money, we can't use them anyways.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Nukes are immoral because they specifically target civilians.
Leaders will be in bunkers and the rich in society will be there visiting them.

So they're a waste of money, we can't use them anyways.

Now, now. We can hardly blame the target on the nuke.

Originally posted by Merk
Now, now. We can hardly blame the target on the nuke.

The point is that you cannot use nukes in anything other than an indescriminate manner. That's what makes them immoral.

Originally posted by Redmike
The point is that you cannot use nukes in anything other than an indescriminate manner. That's what makes them immoral.

Not so. Nukes can be used tactically.

Originally posted by Merk
Not so. Nukes can be used tactically.

Not these ones.

Originally posted by Redmike
Not these ones.

So uprade 'em. They already have guidance, they just need to be smaller to be used "more" tactically.

Originally posted by Merk
Not so. Nukes can be used tactically.

How, exactly, do you use a nuke tactically?
Is Hiroshima an example of this?

Originally posted by Merk
So uprade 'em. They already have guidance, they just need to be smaller to be used "more" tactically.

You can't use them tactically from a submarine.

These missiles are for cities, not battlefields.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Nukes are immoral because they specifically target civilians.
Leaders will be in bunkers and the rich in society will be there visiting them.

So they're a waste of money, we can't use them anyways.

Actually, I think nuclear weapons are the most moral of all.

The presence of nuclear weapons on both sides of a conflict very effectively inhibits the size and range of operations the two sides are willing to take -- unlike all previous wars known to mankind.

So nuclear weapons diminish and possibly in many cases prevent war -- including inhibiting their own use -- unlike all other weapons known to mankind, where greater stockpiles tend to correlate with eventual use. So for example, a country with 1 nuclear weapon might eventually have to use it. But a country with 100 such weapons will likely never have to use any of them.

And all of this is specifically because they DO target civilian targets as well as military ones.

What greater moral good could you wish for?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Actually, I think nuclear weapons are the most moral of all.

The presence of nuclear weapons on both sides of a conflict very effectively inhibits the size and range of operations the two sides are willing to take -- unlike all previous wars known to mankind.

So nuclear weapons diminish and possibly in many cases prevent war -- including inhibitin ...[text shortened]... target civilian targets as well as military ones.

What greater moral good could you wish for?

You're right, of course.

We can see that the presence of nuclear weapons has prevented any wars since their unveiling by the US in 1945.

A wonderful, war-free, 62 years.

🙄

Originally posted by Redmike
You can't use them tactically from a submarine.

These missiles are for cities, not battlefields.

Sure you can. They're guided, it doesn't matter where they are launched from, they land in the same place.

Your problem with them is the size I presume?

Originally posted by Redmike
You're right, of course.

We can see that the presence of nuclear weapons has prevented any wars since their unveiling by the US in 1945.

A wonderful, war-free, 62 years.

🙄

I said they act to inhibit the size of conflicts. There isn't any way (yet) to completely get rid of conflict. That waits on a democratically elected UN and world government.

And of course, we do not yet have nuclear weapons on all sides.

Originally posted by Merk
Sure you can. They're guided, it doesn't matter where they are launched from, they land in the same place.

Your problem with them is the size I presume?

With the size and the after effects.

The whole idea of these missiles is that they could be anywhere in any of the world's ocean's, able to strike at the supposed enemy's cities.

They're not meant to be able to react to a tactical situation in a battlefield.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I said they act to inhibit the size of conflicts. There isn't any way (yet) to completely get rid of conflict. That waits on a democratically elected UN and world government.

And of course, we do not yet have nuclear weapons on all sides.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this point, as the evidence can be turned either way.

At the end of the day, a small country like Scotland neither wants nor needs them.

Originally posted by Redmike
If England want the missiles and submarines, they can have them. And they can pay for them.

What makes you think "England" wants them. It's only them there politicians that get a say.


And regarding breach of the NNPT (apart from the continuing breach of the disarmament obligations), are we (the UK) getting new warheads also, or is it just the submarines that are being upgraded.
If it's just the submarines...