Nuclear Weapons - mostly good, or a bit bad?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The cost is certainly an issue. The money can, and probably should, be put to better use.

 

I don't, however, expect an extra £30bn (for arguments sake) a year to be put to any use whatsoever.

Edited April 22, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[blandy]

This is one of those heart says no, head says yes questions. I really don't know my opinion on the issue

Broadly, this. I'm probably against them, more than for, but there are two sides to it, and it's far from a simple choice.

 

I'm against the weapons on principle.

 

I'm against renewing trident on the basis that we're being bullied into doing it by a US defence industry that wants us to spend 2% of our GDP on arms so that they can spend the money on their own arms. It's pointless and we're being bullied into it - Oi you! Dinner money!

 

Still, I'm sure once we've finished painting the Russians as mental there'll be sufficient support for closing down more unprofitable social services and buying more bombs that no one wants to use but protect us from nations that aren't any kind of threat.

This is not at all the way I view it. We're not bullied into having it by the U.S. There's certainly a retained kind of mindset left over from the cold war, and within the MoD, Gov't, DoD and State Dept. etc. and whether that mindset is appropriate for current times is definitely arguable.

 

...save for thinking that Putin's the second most dangerous man on the planet (after Zuckerberg, obviously).

This is one reason - and not just Putin, but fruit loops everywhere, and there are a few in the world at any given time, where having nukes is a genuine deterrent.

 

Absolutely not. If we ever get to the point where they will be a deterrent for anything, we're all buggered anyway.

Kind of, again - if we ever get to the point where someone feels as PM they need to press the button, we're goosed and pressing the button would be the wrong move, definitely. But the deference is real.

 

Its a chicken and egg situation for me.

 

Can we spend £100bn on nukes when we have 100,000s of people using foodbanks? Or does spending the £100bn ensure that those people are at least alive and suitably radiation free to access foodbanks in the first place?

 

Dunno.

 

On the wider defence issue - reducing spending on defence further is a shit idea IMO. If we want to guarantee strategic and economic interests (eg. Falklands) we need to maintain an effective modern, fit for purpose armed service. My like getting on the free weights at the gym your place in the world is defined by the size of your guns. If they get smaller there is always some other vest wearing meathead ready to push you back to the pilates class.

This also. The 100 billion is 3 billion a year, which is a much smaller amount in the big scheme of things, I'd tend towards, as you say, spending it on genuine defence (conventional), rather than nuclear subs.

 

I think you've got to have them if you want to sit at the top table in international politics. I don't think it's any coincidence that the five permanent members of the UN are nuclear powers.

Definitely.

 

I'm still not sure who we think we need them to defend ourselves against. 

 

The Russians? If they launched anything in the direction of Western Europe the entire population of the planet would be wiped out in thirty minutes whether we had a 100 megaton bomb or hankie pointed at them. Our part in a future nuclear conflict with Russia is utterly immaterial. Ditto for China.

 

I'm guessing that in the event of UK territory being attacked by a non-nuclear nation it would give us the ability to threaten them with nuclear extinction, but even in that situation I can't see them ever actually being a valuable political weapon, let alone a tactical weapon - would anyone actually have been behind the idea of Thatcher nuking Buenos Aries to defend the Falklands, would the Argentinians have taken that threat seriously?

Would Russia contemplate getting into genuine war situation with the West (or us with them) while there's the risk of nuclear weapons? No. No chance. This is the effect they have. Unpleasant as they are. Same applies to China or anyone else. They tend to focus the mind that way. Democracies don't go to war with each other and neither do nuclear powers

 

I'm guessing that in the event of UK territory being attacked by a non-nuclear nation it would give us the ability to threaten them with nuclear extinction, but even in that situation I can't see them ever actually being a valuable political weapon, let alone a tactical weapon - would anyone actually have been behind the idea of Thatcher nuking Buenos Aries to defend the Falklands, would the Argentinians have taken that threat seriously?

the question would be did the Argies think she might just be mad , bad and dangerous enough to use them ?

 

same with Putin , we know he wont use them , but he also gives just enough hint of bonkers to suggest he might

 

The Americans used them not just for a revenge attack but also to send a message to Stalin to think again .... arguably the threat worked , arguably it also lead to a pointless arm race  ..but  I guess the point would be though that we haven't had any more fired in close on 70 years , even if Cuba was a close run thing

I don't think their impact on non nuclear countries is the same, in terms of deterrent, by and large. Conflicts like the Falklands are basically local squabbles, compared to essentially super-powers going at it.

 

Like I say I'm more minded to get rid of them, but can see the case to keep them. I just can't conceive of ever using them, but that in itself is a deterrent.

[darrenm]

I always wonder when large figures are quoted for public spending how much of that money is actually wasted.

Generally people see the large figure as just disappearing into the ether but actually it pays for the jobs of the engineers, the support crews, the infrastructure which involves contractors, the production of the raw materials etc. None of it, or very little, is actually waste. Except time, probably.

All of this stuff drives the economy, so money spent is actually good because more people are in work, spending more on other stuff.

I'd say the money is a bit of a phantom figure, it doesn't mean a lot. The real waste is using raw materials and environmental impact, not the money which is doesn't mean a lot.

[The_Rev]

Another way of looking at is is asking the obvious question about the Cold War.

Would the Cold War have turned into a full blown WW3 if the threat of mutually assured destruction from nukes not been there?

It probably would, right?

[blandy]

I always wonder when large figures are quoted for public spending how much of that money is actually wasted.

Generally people see the large figure as just disappearing into the ether but actually it pays for the jobs of the engineers, the support crews, the infrastructure which involves contractors, the production of the raw materials etc. None of it, or very little, is actually waste. Except time, probably.

All of this stuff drives the economy, so money spent is actually good because more people are in work, spending more on other stuff.

I'd say the money is a bit of a phantom figure, it doesn't mean a lot. The real waste is using raw materials and environmental impact, not the money which is doesn't mean a lot.

Too right Darren. The whole election debate, such as it is, for example is like an accountancy meeting. Accountancy has it's place, but it isn't life, and life shouldn't be based only around the price of everything.

[Baselayers]

I should have strapped a little one to my board and flung it at Putin

[HanoiVillan]

They're pish. We would need to get permission from Washington to fire in any difficult situation, and whatever we contributed would be so irrelevant compared to Uncle Sam's rain of hellfire that they're basically worthless as an actual weapon. 

 

So, once we've admitted that, the usual argument turns into something about the UN Security Council. I can't say I find our contributions to that august body to be particularly praiseworthy anyway, but I suppose it is at least a conversation. I don't really care enough to march over the issue, but public spending is heading for a crunch in the next ten years, and disarming does seem like an 'easy win' for saving large amounts of cash. 

 

I chose the second option. I don't really know if it's what I believe. 

[chrisp65]

my thoughts on this do tend to waiver, but for today:

 

I find it interesting that there are votes for having NATO nukes. Or, to put it another way. people would surrender our nuclear weapons but allow nukes under somebody else's control be stored in UK bases. It's a strong statement on trusting your friends and great if it could be pulled off.

 

Then there is the argument that Putin could wipe out the earth with a nuclear attack so it's suicide. Well, yes if he launches a few dozen of them, less so if he just pops one off in London and watches western economics and infrastructure collapse. Do we know that the U.S. would retaliate on our behalf? We know they'd do that for definite 30 years from now? We're happy to get rid of ours but rely on someone else's?

 

Then there's the rogue death cult state. In 20 years time when the ISIS caliphate is established and semi recognised (in a North Korea sort of way), if we have no weapons why on earth wouldn't they nuke us? Then again, they might just nuke us in the hope of revenge nuking to bring about the end of days?

 

But then, if Tony's suitcase nuke goes off at Birmingham New Street, who are we going to bomb? Would we wipe out all the people of Iraq and Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi, Libya and Syria to get back at the handful of perpetrators?

 

It's a toughy. Twenty years ago, I was a straightforward simple nuclear disarmer. Now, today, I'm a don't know.

[snowychap]

But then, if Tony's suitcase nuke goes off at Birmingham New Street, who are we going to bomb?

Surrey?

[dont_do_it_doug.]

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

It's all just willy waving.

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

No, the firing squad is still there (unless eveyone multilaterally disarms tomorrow). Russia, North Korea etc. The difference being that whilst the firing squad is there, you also have a gun aimed at them.

show me a war film where the resistance leader got tied to a post and shot by firing squad whilst holding a gun in his hand

but I can't help but think we are going around here on a play of words

I suppose a better way to look at the question would be , do you think Israel would still exist if it wasn't a nuclear power ( they do of course have American support ) .. would the DPRK still exist if it didn't have a nuclear capability ? they have a frightening amount of hardware but nothing that couldn't be taken out if the desire was there ( which arguably it isn't as it suits both America and China to have them as a buffer zone)

the answer in both cases might still be yes ... but I suspect having nukes means both of these examples have increased their likelihood of survival a few % points

So, what you're saying is that if you plan to become a rogue state, with a penchant for breaching human rights and persecuting people, you'll need nuclear weapons - and you believe we should spend £100bn on them, just in case we get the urge to be arseholes?

Nations like Sweden for example seem to exist despite not having nuclear weapons, I'd quite like us to be more like them than Israel.

If we were Sweden then there would be no point in us having them. But we aren't Sweden. I wish we were too but we aren't, we are one of the most hated nations on earth. It renders your point moot.

[chrisp65]

 

But then, if Tony's suitcase nuke goes off at Birmingham New Street, who are we going to bomb?

Surrey?

 

 

Having been through Surrey a few times recently, they still appear to be suffering prolonged after effects from agent orange.

 

[tonyh29]

But then, if Tony's suitcase nuke goes off at Birmingham New Street, who are we going to bomb?

Surrey?

Having been through Surrey a few times recently, they still appear to be suffering prolonged after effects from agent orange.

Merely scarecrows to keep interlopers out

[Paddywhack]

I've voted I'm not really sure because I'm not really sure.

 

I always wonder when large figures are quoted for public spending how much of that money is actually wasted.
Generally people see the large figure as just disappearing into the ether but actually it pays for the jobs of the engineers, the support crews, the infrastructure which involves contractors, the production of the raw materials etc. None of it, or very little, is actually waste. Except time, probably.
All of this stuff drives the economy, so money spent is actually good because more people are in work, spending more on other stuff.
I'd say the money is a bit of a phantom figure, it doesn't mean a lot. The real waste is using raw materials and environmental impact, not the money which is doesn't mean a lot.

 

I always think that, people talk about money being wasted as if it's a load of cash in a suitcase being fired off in a rocket to the moon.

 

Maybe it is like that, I'm not a clever man so...I'm not really sure.

[smetrov]

Pointless debate FFP limits the amount you can spend on nukes anyway....

[smetrov]

I always wonder when large figures are quoted for public spending how much of that money is actually wasted.

Generally people see the large figure as just disappearing into the ether but actually it pays for the jobs of the engineers, the support crews, the infrastructure which involves contractors, the production of the raw materials etc. None of it, or very little, is actually waste. Except time, probably.

All of this stuff drives the economy, so money spent is actually good because more people are in work, spending more on other stuff.

I'd say the money is a bit of a phantom figure, it doesn't mean a lot. The real waste is using raw materials and environmental impact, not the money which is doesn't mean a lot.

 

Yes there was quote a couple of years back when the economy was is dire straights

 

"There is the assumption that the private sector props up the public sector - when actually the opposite seems to be true"

 

 

I had a friend who made a decent living of being a contract plasterer - loads of his work was at schools , hospitals etc - he ended up having to extend his mortgage - as that work dried up over a matter of months. Ironically he was a public sector basher, full of waste etc...

[Spoony]

I'm of the opinion that they "prevent war", as they say. I don't like them but I'd rather have them than not in a world where countries like Russia and NK (maybe) have them and Iran are cracking on with their own nuclear program.

 

It's an effective deterrent. I don't think we need new ones though. Why upgrade something that's capable of destroying everything anyway that we'll likely never use?

[chrisp65]

I'm of the opinion that they "prevent war", as they say. I don't like them but I'd rather have them than not in a world where countries like Russia and NK (maybe) have them and Iran are cracking on with their own nuclear program.

 

It's an effective deterrent. I don't think we need new ones though. Why upgrade something that's capable of destroying everything anyway that we'll likely never use?

 

I guess that's the whole 'arms race' thing?

 

I don't know, but I'd guess the existing systems we have probably have a shelf life. The subs can probably be tracked so they aren't the surprise mystery strike force, they probably need more and more maintenance and spend too much time being coaxed into service. The missiles might be easily tracked and relatively slow and newer shield weapons and interceptors 'might' be capable of knocking them out over Finland instead of Moscow?

 

I'd guess once a deterrent is old, it's less scary and less impressive. Otherwise I guess guns would still be old school single shooter pistols?

 

There's a whole argument about preventing war that I'm sure the Ukrainians and Georgia and Afghanistan would be interested in, not to say the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Balkans, Libya, El Salvador.....

[lapal_fan]

BURN EVERYTHING.

[blandy]

There's a whole argument about preventing war that I'm sure the Ukrainians and Georgia and Afghanistan would be interested in, not to say the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Balkans, Libya, El Salvador.....

 

Do they have nukes? No. Exactly.

[chrisp65]

 

There's a whole argument about preventing war that I'm sure the Ukrainians and Georgia and Afghanistan would be interested in, not to say the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Balkans, Libya, El Salvador.....

 

Do they have nukes? No. Exactly.

 

 

So is it fair to deny them nukes and let them be repeatedly invaded and bossed around?

 

By that logic, world peace can be achieved by giving everyone a bomb.