Scrap Trident?
22/4/10 23:03![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSeeing as it's International Relations Week, here is another hot potato for you.
Ok , I have my own take on this, but it is contentious - so convert me!
I think that Britain should not replace Trident, the nuclear missile system , because the UK does not need it.
It isn't just that we can hide behind America and use theirs instead - I think we should give up using nukes altogether.
Ok - who is going to attack the UK?
Well, Argentina and Spain might. Argentina already has, in fact. But nuclear weapons did not deter agression. The resolute use of conventional force evicted the Argantine invaders from the Falklands, though, so Britain should keep conventional forces and abandon Trident, I say.
But what about the Russians, I hear some ask.
Well, if Russia wants to invade the UK, it isn't starting from th Berlin Wall anymore. That landmark is not even there. The reds have got to start from their own border, fight thru Poland, then half of Germany, just to get where they used to be - then carry on invading Europe to reach us. And have they got the means and the motive any more? I doubt it.
Korea? They have to invade China first.
China? Surely they don't have any ambition to invade Europe - they would be more interested in competition with Japan and other places in that side of the world.
So, I don't think any nation has got the means and the motivation to attack us. but what do you say?
Also, nuclear weapons produce the ingredients for the ' dirty bomb '- a decent option from a terrorist's POV.
Nuclear power produces a mere 4 % of our electricity, but 100% of our weapons grade plutonium.
I think we can safely do without nuclear power, and the nukes they produce.
What say you, O politically savvy community watchers?
Ok , I have my own take on this, but it is contentious - so convert me!
I think that Britain should not replace Trident, the nuclear missile system , because the UK does not need it.
It isn't just that we can hide behind America and use theirs instead - I think we should give up using nukes altogether.
Ok - who is going to attack the UK?
Well, Argentina and Spain might. Argentina already has, in fact. But nuclear weapons did not deter agression. The resolute use of conventional force evicted the Argantine invaders from the Falklands, though, so Britain should keep conventional forces and abandon Trident, I say.
But what about the Russians, I hear some ask.
Well, if Russia wants to invade the UK, it isn't starting from th Berlin Wall anymore. That landmark is not even there. The reds have got to start from their own border, fight thru Poland, then half of Germany, just to get where they used to be - then carry on invading Europe to reach us. And have they got the means and the motive any more? I doubt it.
Korea? They have to invade China first.
China? Surely they don't have any ambition to invade Europe - they would be more interested in competition with Japan and other places in that side of the world.
So, I don't think any nation has got the means and the motivation to attack us. but what do you say?
Also, nuclear weapons produce the ingredients for the ' dirty bomb '- a decent option from a terrorist's POV.
Nuclear power produces a mere 4 % of our electricity, but 100% of our weapons grade plutonium.
I think we can safely do without nuclear power, and the nukes they produce.
What say you, O politically savvy community watchers?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:59 (UTC)So long as the Ruskies can keep misusing the power of veto, we are none of us getting nowhere.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 00:50 (UTC)Who has (mis)used the security council veto more than any other nation?
I think you should go check the voting records, because you will probably be astonished at the kinds of things that have been voted down and by whom.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 07:00 (UTC)but if the UK, or the French, or even the Americans have abused the voto to squash ideas they didn't like - well, this does not suprise me either and I am not going to argue - as far as I am concerned, this simply supports my point. Britain should scrap it's nukes, not replace them , and make the Security council an elected body.
We gave up an Empire - mainly because running it was not worth the effort - but we were the first power to give our Empire back to those we took it from.
The right thing to do now is give up our seat on the Security Council, for the greater good of world peace.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 11:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 11:27 (UTC)I do suggest you look up which permanent member has used its veto power overwhelmingly even when the vast majority of the security council attempts resolutions.
It isn't Russia.