Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
I don't think Britain is irrelevant but then, neither are countless other countries who do not have nuclear weapons. For example, do you think France is more relevant to international relations than, say, Germany, Australia or Japan?
|
Not necessarily, I would certainly consider Germany a superpower but rightly or wrongly they are still paying the price for WWII and to their credit they agreed not to have their own nukes. It's true that it might be hard for us to lecture other countries; we're certainly not some beacon of responsibility in international affairs given our recent actions. It's why I can actually understand why Iran wants them as well, even North Korea to some extent has guaranteed their safety from any external attempt at regime change by having nukes. I do think though that our history of the last few decades has given us a great appreciation of nuclear weaponry and its dangers. Even disregarding that it is clear that overall the tide is to more nuclear countries, not less. It might be quite a conservative attitude but imo in something like international security it is best to maintain the status quo, to maintain stability. There does seem to be a general recognition of that, hence the 5 permanent members of the security council and hence a lot of countries agreeing not to have nuclear weapons and being happy for the UK and others to have them. It's not just about a little Englander hankering for Empire or wanting to rule the world, if anything I think it's the opposite of that. I'd like to think nuclear weapons also keep us grounded as a reminder of the dangers in engaging in all out conflict. Just as I support us having an active role in Europe in the EU so I support us having an active role in international security and I do think that nuclear weapons are important to that.