Nuclear Weapons - mostly good, or a bit bad?

[kurtsimonw]

I would have to go with bad as I can only assume it's nuclear weapon testing that's created small heath fans.

[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.

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.

The logic, such that there is much of it in this topic, is that a nuclear arms country is one heck of a lot less likely to be attacked by enemies than one without nukes,  yes. That was the point of my comment, really.

Now whether that would make the world a safer place overall, probably not. The odds I guess are that at some point some nutjob would deliberately or accidentally fire one (or more) off and do a bit of damage.

 

That's why it's such a complex issue. The people that have them don't want to give them up, many that don't have them want to get them, and they'd possibly still want to get them, even if those that have them now were to give them up.

 

So you're left with a world in which the nuclear powers try and stop Iran (for example) developing them, despite Israel having them next door and nothing being done about that. There's not so much clear logic to the non-proliferation/disarmament side of things.

[Ads]

It's expensive because you need a constant all year round nuclear deterrent, which means (for us) four boats capable of three months on patrol, carrying a multi-stage delivery system.

If you're going to have nuclear weapons, and you're a conventional state and therefore have an interest in being here tomorrow, then you will need a second strike capability; that means a hundred plus missiles, hundreds of war heads and multiple platforms. Anything less and you may as well not have them at all.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Ads

[ender4]

Does the current type of warfare we are experiencing around Europe change peoples minds on whether we should renew our nuclear deterrent or not?

[The_Rev]

2 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Does the current type of warfare we are experiencing around Europe change peoples minds on whether we should renew our nuclear deterrent or not?

I don't think it's as simple as that. Not renewing might cost us our seat on permanent members of the UN security council and sour relationships with Washington as we lease the missiles from the USA and I'd imagine quite a lot of American jobs are dependant on that contract.  Considering Cameron doesn't appear to be a huge fan of the EU and the US are trying to push through some bullshit trade agreement because they are scared of what China might become economically in 30-50 years time then now might not be the moment to isolate ourselves internationally from our closest allies. 

[limpid]

Locked as it's a poll. Please start a new thread.