[user104658]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

But we are little.We need a big dong dangling between our legs.Not a......

No, we need to accept that we aren't a global superpower any more, aren't going to be one again, and start looking inwards at (and spending money on) our own broken mess of a country instead of pissing around on a world stage that we don't really belong on like a yappy puppy.

[Northern Monkey]

But would you really want the French to have a bigger penis than us?Could you live in that world?I'm not sure i could.

[user104658]

The only types of war that we will ever engage in, ever again, are ones that are scrappy and complex like the war against ISIS, or a potential final blowout between big nations. That's it. If it's the latter, it won't matter what we do or don't have. If it's the former, nuclear weapons will be completely useless. It's a type of war that has to be fought intelligently and with precision. Scalpels, not hammers.

There seems to be some argument of "but what if in future...". Well, in future nothing. Either it kicks off on a nuclear scale and we all die, or it doesn't kick off at all and we don't need them. The deciding factor in this is M.A.D. Tens of thousands of warheads. We are not part of that, our nuclear capability is completely irrelevant in that context.

[MTVN]

Instead of thinking we're bigger than we are I actually think people spend too long wallowing about how supposedly unimportant we now are. The UK is at the forefront of pretty much every major global organisation there is; the UN, G8, NATO etc. We are still a global superpower I'm afraid even if that now manifests in a different form to the more obvious strength of an empire or a large navy. We probably could still remain one without Trident in a lot of ways though not really in terms of international security. Our role as a permanent member of the UN security council becomes largely pointless and we leave the nuclear security of western Europe in the sole hands of France.

The fact remains that we do not how global relations could change in the future. It's basically constantly changing. I mean, ISIS barely existed a couple of years ago, now they're often considered the main global threat. We thought the days of overt conflict with Russia were largely over but we seem to increasingly be creeping back to them. Iran were considered the main threat not too long ago and now we are on the verge of a major breakthrough in relations with them, probably Obama's greatest achievement. Iraq was thought to be becoming increasingly stable not too long ago and is now engulfed in conflict. We could go back further - it was thought during WWI that it would be "the war to end all wars" yet twenty years later the world collapsed into a conflict even longer and deadlier. It's also the case with technology. Did people envisage, say, drone warfare becoming so prominent say 50 years ago? Was anything like the nuclear weapon envisaged twenty years before its invention? Yet apparently we can now say with complete certainty the exact possibilities wherein the UK could be involved in a war and the way in which technology could be utilised? For all we know there could come a point where nuclear technology gets implemented into warfare without it necessarily destroying the whole world. This time in a hundred years the global and technological landscape will be completely different to how it is now.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Instead of thinking we're bigger than we are I actually think people spend too long wallowing about how supposedly unimportant we now are. The UK is at the forefront of pretty much every major global organisation there is; the UN, G8, NATO etc. We are still a global superpower I'm afraid even if that now manifests in a different form to the more obvious strength of an empire or a large navy. We probably could still remain one without Trident in a lot of ways though not really in terms of international security. Our role as a permanent member of the UN security council becomes largely pointless and we leave the nuclear security of western Europe in the sole hands of France.

The fact remains that we do not how global relations could change in the future. It's basically constantly changing. I mean, ISIS barely existed a couple of years ago, now they're often considered the main global threat. We thought the days of overt conflict with Russia were largely over but we seem to increasingly be creeping back to them. Iran were considered the main threat not too long ago and now we are on the verge of a major breakthrough in relations with them, probably Obama's greatest achievement. Iraq was thought to be becoming increasingly stable not too long ago and is now engulfed in conflict. We could go back further - it was thought during WWI that it would be "the war to end all wars" yet twenty years later the world collapsed into a conflict even longer and deadlier. It's also the case with technology. Did people envisage, say, drone warfare becoming so prominent say 50 years ago? Was anything like the nuclear weapon envisaged twenty years before its invention? Yet apparently we can now say with complete certainty the exact possibilities wherein the UK could be involved in a war and the way in which technology could be utilised? For all we know there could come a point where nuclear technology gets implemented into warfare without it necessarily destroying the whole world. This time in a hundred years the global and technological landscape will be completely different to how it is now.

This is a fantastic post and although I still could be persuaded that we don't necessarily need as much of the nuclear deterrent we currently have.
I really find no way at all to dispute or disagree with all you say in the above post.
The latter point very insightful and making immense sense too.

[MTVN]

Plus lets not forget that for a large part of the 20th century war between nuclear powers seemed a very real possibility and we probably came incredibly close to it on several occasions

[Livia]

Excellent points MTVN, as usual.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Excellent points MTVN, as usual.

No he is Wrong
he does not know the Full facts

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

No he is Wrong
he does not know the Full facts

With respect, arista, his points are extremely well-informed in my opinion.

[MTVN]

Thank you Livia, enough of your ranting Arista

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Thank you Livia, enough of your ranting Arista

Is my Info wrong?


I hate Ranters

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, arista, his points are extremely well-informed in my opinion.

Yes but Not Up To Date

[AnnieK]

I was wavering on this to be honest but Matts posts have reinforced my original views in that we need nuclear weapons.

[user104658]

I'm not saying that the landscape couldn't change to the point where nuclear war becomes reality. I'm saying that if it does, whether or not we're the ones firing them will not matter. Not even slightly.

They have no use as weapons, their only use is as a threat / deterrent. Their only use as a deterrent is against the nuclear superpowers as part of M.A.D. Trident is not needed as part of M.A.D.

The only scenario under which we would need our own nuclear deterrent is if the three major players involved in m.a.d were to be on the same side, and against us. So that's the US, Russia and China teaming up as a nuclear threat against Europe or the UK and US then using four submarines to deter them.

It's a scenario so ludicrous that you might as well say we should keep nukes incase an invading force of insectoid aliens attacks, and we'll need to turn the trident subs into makeshift spacecraft and launch them into space to destroy the insect moon-base.

If either of those things happen (superpower dreamteam or insect invaders) we are automatically and completely screwed to the point that fighting back would actually be laughable.

I'll say again: it's dick swinging.

There's a reason that the English - both people and politicians - are desperate to cling to trident and a place as "big boys" on the world stage in ways that the other countries in the UK are not. That reason is that England - unlike the other countries - have very little national identity that isn't linked to empire and power.

[Kizzy]

If France has one and it's only 25 miles away across the channel can't we just share?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If France has one and it's only 25 miles away across the channel can't we just share?

I personally think it would be a good idea to have the cost spread across the whole of Europe if we must have them, but everyone on tibby is euroskeptic so I can't see many agreeing! After all, it would make mighty England less muscly manly super Awesomes boom boom big bombs poweeerrrr. And in 50 years someone might want to attack us. Maybe Norwegians? In nuclear longboats.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by arista

Is my Info wrong?


I hate Ranters

What is your info?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not saying that the landscape couldn't change to the point where nuclear war becomes reality. I'm saying that if it does, whether or not we're the ones firing them will not matter. Not even slightly.

They have no use as weapons, their only use is as a threat / deterrent. Their only use as a deterrent is against the nuclear superpowers as part of M.A.D. Trident is not needed as part of M.A.D.

The only scenario under which we would need our own nuclear deterrent is if the three major players involved in m.a.d were to be on the same side, and against us. So that's the US, Russia and China teaming up as a nuclear threat against Europe or the UK and US then using four submarines to deter them.

It's a scenario so ludicrous that you might as well say we should keep nukes incase an invading force of insectoid aliens attacks, and we'll need to turn the trident subs into makeshift spacecraft and launch them into space to destroy the insect moon-base.

If either of those things happen (superpower dreamteam or insect invaders) we are automatically and completely screwed to the point that fighting back would actually be laughable.

I'll say again: it's dick swinging.

There's a reason that the English - both people and politicians - are desperate to cling to trident and a place as "big boys" on the world stage in ways that the other countries in the UK are not. That reason is that England - unlike the other countries - have very little national identity that isn't linked to empire and power.

I don't think that's necessarily true, right now I suppose we're something of a second line of European defence because in the last few hundred years Europe has probably been more ravaged by internal conflict than any other continent. The others have all seen their fair share of conflict but not on the same scale. We all talk about the two "world wars" but in reality they were primarily European wars weren't they, conflict between European powers that ultimately took place on a global scale. And actually its entirely possible that the super powers could go to war without using their nuclear weapons, it doesn't have to mean global apocalypse. There have always been 'rules' to war, things that just aren't acceptable to do - nuclear weapons could easily be one of them. You might say that that will be broken as soon as one side starts losing they'll get their nuke out but that's no more true than breaking any other 'rule' of warfare. And again, the threat of MAD would be another great barrier against that.

And as for the superpowers anyway, who's to say who they will be in the future? If you were to say a hundred years ago that China would be a world superpower no one would believe you. The USA has been a superpower for what, about a century? Countries are developing all the time, the global situation is so fluid that there is absolutely no guarantee that the countries who dominate international relations right now will be those who do in years to come. In a sense nuclear weapons are a big part of what preserves stability in global affairs. The UK, the US, China, Russia and France: their position becomes a lot less secure if suddenly they don't have nuclear weaponry underpinning their status. The UN has played a big part in stabilising international relations and the balance of power in the post-war decades. Nuclear weapons do also do that because like it or not we're stuck with them. A nuclear free world is a pipe dream.

Anyway I get the sense really that the debate here isn't as much about nuclear weapons as about Britain's place in the world. You think that we are essentially irrelevant in international relations these days, or at least irrelevant enough not to bother with nuclear weapons. I disagree, and for the record I don't disagree because hang ups over penis size or the lack of identity I have as an Englishman. I don't mourn the end of the Empire, and I certainly don't think we should be merely 'dick swinging' on an international stage. We do have a role to play though, and when it comes to international security we need nuclear weapons to underpin that role.

[user104658]

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?

[MTVN]

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.

[Northern Monkey]

God dam French and their huge penises,Making us have nukes.If we scrapped them they'd all stand on the cliffs of Calais doing helicopters with their schlongs.

[user104658]

You present an interesting argument MTVN. I don't know if I'm entirely on board with this as an ideology but at the very least you've given me something to ponder. Which I am genuinely thankful for.

[lostalex]

I think all nations should abandon nuclear weapons, as long as the USA is the last to disarm. Once every other nation is absolutely proven to have disarmed, then i would support the USA disarming as well.

[waterhog]

if we can not defend ourselves you might as way good bye to our way of life.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by waterhog

if we can not defend ourselves you might as way good bye to our way of life.

it's similar to the gun rights debate though. does having a big gun really make you more safe? do you own any guns waterhog?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

it's similar to the gun rights debate though. does having a big gun really make you more safe? do you own any guns waterhog?

I can see the logic in that, it's a proven statistic that carrying a gun makes you much more likely to be shot.

If the worst were to happen, and if someone were to push that button, our possession of nukes would simply make us one of the very first targets. Again, though, not that it really matters who is the first target, if it happens we're all dead anyway.