ArabiaTerra Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Japan feared the Russians more than anything. I disagree, the only thing the Japanese army feared was dishonour. They were ready to take the whole country down with them, and as many British, US and Russian troops as they could. Remember, the Japanese invented the idea of the suicide bomber. It took a direct order from their God (the emperor) to make them stop. A lot of history is covered up. Look at the First World War. It isn't overly taught that it was workers' uprisings that ended it. The fact that the Germans were brought down by an internal revolution is well known, but it must be said, their army was retreating so fast at the time we couldn't catch them. A few dozen warheads could easily destroy the planet from fall-out and nuclear winter and summer. Britain's current arsenal of 200 warheads can easily wipe all life off the planet. Britains 200 warheads would cause a Nuclear winter if all of them were used, but only 50 or so are at sea and available for use at any one time. The threat from radiation has been massively overestimated. After Chernobyl, scientists predicted around 10,000 additional childhood cancers due to low level radiation. So far they have found around about 100 directly attributable to the accident. Low level radiation appears to be much less dangerous than was thought. The only way to build a truely international society isn't through M.A.D. but the end of the Westphalian idea of the nation state. The end of the Nation State is the answer, I agree, unfortunately I can't see that happening anytime soon and until it does happen , we need to keep up our guard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Britains 200 warheads would cause a Nuclear winter if all of them were used, but only 50 or so are at sea and available for use at any one time. What do we need the other 150 for in that case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 I get the feeling I'm losing this arguement... However, (rallies for last stand) Lets say we did get rid off our bomb. That would leave France, India and the USA as the only nuclear armed democracys. Indias bomb is irrelevant to us as it is a short range weapon (and they are all pointed at Pakistan). That leaves the US and France. I don't trust the US (despite the 'special relationship'). Do you think the whole EU should depend on the French to provide a deterrant? I think we should pull our weight and provide our share. A contribution to the cost from our European collegues would be appreciated. Russia and China are friendly at the moment but I don't think we can rely on that. China is getting stronger all the time and will soon be the dominant economy in the world, Russia is recovering rapidly from Communism now that they have sorted out their oil and the Islamic world hates us (with good reason). I think this is a bad time to be dropping our guard. Nuclear weapons are evil, but they exist. Any country which does not have them is open to blackmail. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Remember what happened to Europe in the thirties when Hitler started throwing his weight around. Yet in the twenties if you had told anyone what was about to happen you would have been laughed at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 What do we need the other 150 for in that case? 4 Subs with 50 warheads each 1 on patrol 1 tied up 'off shift' 1 on routine maintenance 1 on long term refit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Anyone else want chip in on my side here? I'm feeling surrounded! Please..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Having liberal views on a nuclear deterrant at this precarious stage in the worlds evolution is naive, I would say. The first half of this century is going to see some very tumulous times! I agree that £25b could be spent on a whole lot of better world needy things such as health, education, etc. and would wipe out poverty in a swaithe of third world countries! However, until such time we as a human race can learn to live with each other and until there is an implementation of some sort of workable world order, we are stuck with "defending" ourselves in the manner that we have done so since the end of the Second World War. We're pretty much tied in with Europe now for the long haul and we'll just have to get on with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargon Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 A lot of history is covered up. Look at the First World War. It isn't overly taught that it was workers' uprisings that ended it. The fact that the Germans were brought down by an internal revolution is well known, but it must be said, their army was retreating so fast at the time we couldn't catch them. The Bolshevik revolution ended Russia's involvement. The industrial north of Italy, particularly Turin was close to revolution, there was the Easter Rising in Dublin and British and French troops mutinied, raised the Red Flag and sang the Internationale after they heard of the October Revolution. The fear of revolution spreading was what ended the First World War but it isn't a good idea to tell the British public that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFly Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Having liberal views on a nuclear deterrant at this precarious stage in the worlds evolution is naive, I would say. Some might say that believing nuclear weapons to be any sort of deterrent against the kind of threat we are likely to face at this precarious stage of the worlds evolution might just be a tad naive trout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Oh good lord, 8O I've awoken McFly! I would love to see a world without nuclear proliferation and we, as in Britain, signed the non-proliferation treaty in 196 whatever it was, and have followed by it since with the 5 other declared states. We do however, with these other Non Weapons States, hold party to look after states that do not have a nuclear power. Rebuilding our decrepit war machines that hold our "old weaponary" for defense is not proliferating! It is merely keeping going what has gone on since the end of the Second World War. It is keeping balance. My statement merely reflects that I don't believe the world is ready presently to be tipped any which way other than the way it is bumbling along right now! Even for the best of intentions (which I too would love to see!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFly Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Oh good lord, 8O I've awoken McFly! Nah, I'm off to sleep again trout. It just strikes me that maybe our glorious leaders are living in the past. Or maybe they have more sinister reasons for spending huge amounts of money on what looks, increasingly these days, like an obsolete form of defence. I'm just not sure, but George Monbiot wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian last week: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/29/defence-against-what/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Yes, I have read copy of similar reportings. I do see that angle and yes, it does make you question! I would trust and hope (probably naively myself) that it isn't so sinister and or pointless after all. Rather that we were part of the "old world order" of five NWS nations: People's Republic of China: - who knows what they're getting upto?!?!?France - well need I say more?Russia - not really as stable as they would like to make out!USA - been stung badly again, confused foreign policy, potentially might do anything! and us, Britain: - who to have any chance to let/make the above and other nations see sense would need to be on that "world stage" playing field!What sway with any of the above will Britain have in any talks with anything, plus near domestic issues such as the new proposed European fighting force for one, if we now step down a peg? Can you see Britains Anglo-centric government conceding to France in any case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 Enjoyed that article McFly, particularly the summary - a shift on focus to a proper defence budget, rather than spending billions on what could more accurately be described as an attack budget (one which seems to cater more for the financial concerns BAE etc, rather than the countries populace), strikes me as rather a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddybay-kyebeoy Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 An amusing and disturbing relationship between Downing St and BAE systems can be read about in Mark Thomas' book 'As Used on the Famous Nelson Mandela'. I yarned with an ex-military fellow at a bar in Islay at da weekend, and when I suggested that the money could be better spent he got really defensive and joked that I was a tree-hugger. That article in the Guardian fae McFly more accurately describes how I feel on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmie Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 I believe the nukes kept the soviet threat at bay long enough for the peoples of eastern europe to have a chance for democracy (such as it is). No nukes and we might have been invaded and No margaret thatcher No glasnost No perestroika No tony blair No Shetlink despite our ability to critiscise our own country I can't think of a better nation to entrust with such weapons. we are but a thread away at any given time from a new Stalin/Hitler and not necessarily of any particular nationality. We have enjoyed relative peace in this country for 50 years, but I don't think that we should abdicate from the world stage. Didn't do the neutrals any good in the last couple of big wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 despite our ability to critiscise our own country I can't think of a better nation to entrust with such weapons.What about Sweden ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.