Should Britain have nuclear weapons?

Casper · 12-05-2006, 09:46 AM

Does the UK need nuclear weapons?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4805768.stm

Tony Blair has set out plans for a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines to carry Trident missiles, although the number of warheads will be reduced by a fifth.

The lifespan of the current system ends in 2024 but MPs will vote on the white paper now to ensure the replacement, which could cost up to £20bn, is ready by then.

How important is an independent nuclear weapons system for UK security?

**Will** · 12-05-2006, 11:27 AM

I voted yes, because I believe MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is still a necessary defence. Although I hate to agree with the Lib Dems, I think we can cut up to 50% of our stock. We don't need enough weapons to annihilate half the planet.

bugsy · 12-05-2006, 12:22 PM

There is no other way.........we must keep our nuclear weapons as a deterrent........it does work and always will.

Casper · 03-14-2007, 10:47 AM

What about the idea that it's the quality of life that should be concentrated on, and not the quantity of life?

This means that rather than spend money to build WMDs in order to preserve a community from a threat in the future, money should be spent on increasing the quality of life until a community's fate is sealed.

It should not matter how long you walk the earth, but what you did whilst on it.

bugsy · 03-14-2007, 11:55 AM

those views casper, appear to be similar to the views of a growing minority, that the human population should be culled to a manageable level.
If super powers did not have a deterrant, then heaven help us all.
The trident system is a must and all the current talk about it is a lot of hot air from the greens....

The world we live in has got some real sick people, who are looking for an excuse or oppotunity to lash out. Whether feeding everyone and supplying all their needs will change the situation cannot be guaranteed

Casper · 03-14-2007, 02:09 PM

Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear.

What I meant was improve the quality of life for our own community, not improve the quality of life for everyone including people from enemy states.

So in practice this would imply that our community (Britain) should see extra funding for hospitals and schools and pensions etc. in order to increase health, education, and welfare although whilst losing an adequate nuclear defence system.

If then in 50 years time a rogue state wished to terminate the existence of our community, so be it. At least we lived a happier life than they did because they had focussed their efforts in destroying another community rather than on improving their own.

Isn’t this the most moral line of thinking? Of course it’s a radical theory. Nonetheless, is it not credible? Perhaps not, but then please point out how. I can probably already see a flaw in this, though I think it could still be rebutted.

bugsy · 03-14-2007, 04:38 PM

Casper, we live in a real world, with real people and real *&^%$£"!
there is no utopia, where we all live together in harmony for ever more.
To believe that by changing the plights of others, will help keep the world a safe place is a myth. as long as there are two people on this planet, there will always be the possibility of conflict.

The nuclear weapons we have can/should be reduced to the minimum level required to act as a deterrant.

Bruv · 03-14-2007, 10:47 PM

The world we live in has got some real sick people, who are looking for an excuse or oppotunity to lash out.

Mixed feelings about this, good job I dont have to make the decision.
The most dangerous country at the moment is the USA, followed by Russia or China, or Pakistan,plus of course Israel, and they all have a nuclear potential.

Doesn't make me feel any safer.....how us having an updated version of total destruction would protect us......I dont see it.

Casper · 03-14-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsy

To believe that by changing the plights of others, will help keep the world a safe place is a myth. as long as there are two people on this planet, there will always be the possibility of conflict.

You are right. It is a myth that the world will be a safer place by 'changing the plights of others'.

However, the theory I have put forward doesn't intend to change the 'plights of others'. Also, neither does it envisage a safe world. In fact, it actually takes into account the possibility that the threat will become more real.

The point is that we could improve the life of our own seperate community, not the community of the world as a whole.

bugsy · 03-15-2007, 07:21 AM

I dont see that at all, unless you are talking about the financial costs, which could be spent elsewhere. If you look at the money flowing in this country, I often wonder where it all goes. What happens to the billions?

A swiss bank account maybe!

Is it possible to destroy all the worlds nuclear arms? what would it take to accomplice this?
I dont think its possible as this would take trust and we dont have a lot of that considering.