Do We Really Need Nuclear Weapons

[Bazile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36820416

1. Why do we have them ?

2. Under what circumstances would we use them ?

[fiction-factory]

I think the idea is we won't use them unless someone fires at us or does something extremely serious- it's a deterrent. You could argue it has worked well

[youngmafbog]

And to turn it round, can you say we dont?

[Baldric]

Baz from your Link, did you read it?

///The logic is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK because, even if the nation's conventional defence capabilities were destroyed, the silent submarine would still be able to launch a catastrophic retaliatory strike on the aggressor, a concept known as mutually assured destruction.///

[Bazile]

I'm simply asking a question - to see what the views of others are .

I did not express an opinion one way or the other

[sunny-dave]

No we don't need them - it's an expensive luxury that is effectively useless in 21st Century Global Conflicts. What exactly are we going to to with them against the jihadis? Take them out to sea one by one & fire them out of the tubes?

To answer your questions, Baz

1. We have them because no PM has the balls to scrap them - there is also a large element of willy waving involved - "my rocket is bigger than yours" playground stuff.

2. We can never use them - the Americans won't let us unless they have just fired theirs too - in which case ours are not worth a ha'pence of spit.

[ToraToraTora]

1) yes
2) if our way of life is threatened and an aggressor was overrunning us and conventional weapons could not stop them or if we were ourselves attacked by nukes or black mailed by a nuclear power.

basically you need them so you don't need them.

cue usual drivel from those who decry the above , "they did not deter Argentina" etc yada yada deliberating misunderstanding the reasons we need them.

[fiction-factory]

I don't think anything will stop jihadis, but that doesn't mean it isn't a deterrent against rational powers

[Baldric]

///cue usual drivel from those who decry the above , "they did not deter Argentina" etc yada yada deliberating misunderstanding the reasons we need them.///

The very same people who were willing to hand over total control of the UK to Germany, oops sorry, Brussels, if I'm not mistaken.

[anneasquith]

When Americana says jump, Britain say how high !

[sunny-dave]

It doesn't (can't) be in anything that you (or indeed anyone outside the code holders circle) can see, TTT - but I'd bet your last dollar on it existing.

PS - why the need for the random abuse? I have a different opinion to you, I abused no-one in giving it - why can't you accept this?

[andy-hughes]

In my view, the amount spent on our nuclear deterrent is a national obscenity.

If Nato arranged for an umbrella protection system funded by each nation according to its resources, we could be protected for a fraction of the billions wasted every year.

The problem is - politicians often have vested financial interests in armaments, even oblique and discreet ones - so the status quo remains for the foreseeable.

[ToraToraTora]

oh ok so it's a hidden conspiracy then dave, no doubt all the nukes are controlled by the illuminati are they? Un-effing-believable!

[sunny-dave]

I give up - I hoped for rational debate - I get patronising abuse.

Ho and indeed Hum

[ToraToraTora]

"In my view, the amount spent on our nuclear deterrent is a national obscenity. " - err no, they are dirt cheap compared to what we spend on WSS, now THAT's a national obscenity.

"If Nato arranged for an umbrella protection system funded by each nation according to its resources, we could be protected for a fraction of the billions wasted every year. " - not a bad idea Andy but the problem then is you'd get nuked before the meeting of the ents decides what what sandwiches they should have in the meeting. Death by administration!

[ToraToraTora]

you started it dave by fanciful claims with no back up evidence.

[vulcan42]

This is an interesting document.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

[jim360]

The mutually-assured destruction excuse for keeping nuclear weapons surely makes sense only as a defence against aggressive nations, rather than radical terrorists who form the main threat these days.

However, as long as North Korea is a thing, we should keep Trident.

[retrocop]

I really feel better about NATO with Turkey a member as well. :-(