Britains secret nuclear weapons

[Englishbird]

Britain have already begun designing a range of nuclear weapons to replace the existing trident warheads. This is with no commons debate, and the official government line is that no decision has been made with regard to Britain's nuclear defence programme.

1) How on earth can 'we' invade countries for producing weapons of mass destruction, What gives us the right to dictate to them what they can and can't do, when we are 'secretly' developing more nuclear weapons of our own.

2) What is the point of having nuclear weapons at all, seeing as once any country starts deploying them, mankind is pretty much ********.

3) Does this billion pound hypocrisy make you proud of your country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2081800,00.html

[Dom Tuk]

Englishbird, the point made repeatedly by USA and UK si that we are a civilsed nation. We will use these weapons with responsibility. We are not like those savages (as the african population was) or those jihadis who want to destroy our civilisation. Besides God is on our side and we will be judged by him in the end. We are good and they is bad.

[jake-the-peg]

I believe this may put us in breech of Article 4 of the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty whereby nuclear states are supposed to pursue to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles

It may complicate our denouncement of the Iranians in the security council if we're breach of the NPT ourselves!

[Englishbird]

Oh, I didn't realise god was on our side, that's ok then, forget I mentioned anything ;o)

I believe, although I may have this wrong, is that their argument is that the new 'Reliable Replacement Warheads' will technically be slightly 'less nuclear' (can't think of the correct phrase) than the existing trident so they are covering themselves within the NPT. Still all a load of boll*x.

[isca]

1. We have a nuclear weapons, im not saying thats a good thing but its better than Iran, Syria etc having them as were pretty unlikely to go handing them out to terrorists which is something that is very likely to happen with the countries i have just mentioned.

2. Its called a nuclear deterant. The whole point is if you fire, we fire so itll be the end of the world and everybody knows it. It sounds and is crazy but its worked for 50 years. im not saying i support it, just thats the system that evolved.

3. its taken you that long realise the governments are hypocritical? its not a perfect system but it gets the bins collected/health service operating, that kinda thing or you could move to Iran if theyre the good guys and we're so bad. But i wouldnt recommend it.

[Ward-Minter]

kind of agree with isca. so englishbird..........your q's

1) we are not a nation of islamic fundamentalists. We have reason and freedom.

2) a dozen decent wars since UK were nuclear armed. Have we used them? Not even close. Further, look at Israel. The only country in that neck of the woods that have nukes. have they ever used them, even in the face of daily attacks? No.

3) i am very proud of this country (at times). Don't like blair, don't like dungaree wearing do-gooders who run this country on the surface. But our heritage, our culture, our way of life, our Royal family, and our Britishness brings tears of joy to my eyes.

[Haggisdj]

We could always test them on Iran...

[Englishbird]

I'm sorry, but it is not good enough to say 'we're better than them' therefore it's one rule for us and another for them.

As for nuclear deterrent, it's rubbish. If any other country on the planet pushes the button, and we were to react in the same way, all that would happen is tens of thousands of innocent people dieing in both countries, not to mention the nuclear fallout and it's devastating environmental impact on surrounding countries and the eco system. It defies all logic to spend billions of pounds on a system that could never be used anyway.

At times I am proud of my country, but actions like this shame me. I am not saying that any country should be allowed to hold nuclear weapons, but I am saying that we cannot dictate that no-one can hold nuclear weapons except us.

[Loosehead]

EB, it's a pardox, you need nuclear weapons to make sure they won't be used.

[Nautilus]

They did the same with Polaris.........I think the new name was Chevaline or something like that; and spent about �2 billion before it became public knowledge.as I recall.

Why do we need all these weapons? Why do we need two or three 'Super Carriers'?

[Englishbird]

I understand the reasons behind nuclear armament, but I'll never be comfortable with them.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Welcome to the 'Heart of Darkness' my friends... Some of the answers on here suggest people are a long way up the Congo already.

And what do you call assassins who accuse assassins anyway..?

[jump79]

I have to agree with you on this, Englishbird, the hypocrisy of our govt. is so clear at times it amazes me.

It alright to say that we are a civilized nation, and the 'rogue' countries aren't, but as EB pointed out, we just supported USA in invading a country.... for no other reason but oil. So much for our 'reason' and 'freedom'.
And then we wonder, why the 'rogue' countries are so mistrustful of the west...

We have not used the nukes, but neither has any other country that has them- its all about power and control, their possession and number put the country on the map, so to speak. E.g- In Asia, India and Pakistan had the same threats put against them when they were developing nukes, but they went ahead anyway. I don't recall those 'rogue' countries using nuke weapons against each other, despite being the worst of enemies (Kind of like the Israel/Palestine of Asia).

[isca]

EB If youre not happy with the nuclear deterant thats fine but you really mightwant to think about how comfortable you would really feel if a country such as Iran which has been, by general acceptance, been arming terrorist militia for many years were to have the ability to create a nuclear weapon. In the wrong hands (and granted were not perfect, but were not suicide bombers either) the weapons might actually get used and then we really have got a problem. Its called non-proliferation, it was agreed after the second world war, and is intended to stop lunatics getting there hands on a weapon capable of destroying most the human race. Personally i think thats a good thing.

[jump79]

Having nuclear weapons is power, and a form of 'security' for the country.

Why is North Korea, that is openly hostile towards USA and the west, not being threatened? Because of its nukes which=power, that's why.
If Iraq really had nukes/WMD's I really don't believe anyone would have dared risk attacking such a threatening country without thinking twice about it.

Iran is not the first to arm itself (Pakistan was seen as a 'rogue' country, full of so-called muslim fanatics)and it will certainly not be the last. The Iraq war fiasco unfortunately, has made other countries more paranoid of the West and therefore, they will only be more determined to arm themselves as soon as possible to prevent any similar invasion of their territories.

[bernardo]

1. Depends on whether the invaded country is likely to want to use their own WMDs for aggressive external purposes. Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Yes. Iran? No. DPRK? No.

2. Deterrent - which is why DPRK has not been attacked, whereas Iran may well be.

3. No

[johnlambert]

Just this once I agree with Ward-Minter