Scrap Trident?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Seeing 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?

Comments

Let's start with WW2

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Right. Because I'm sure after fighting most of of Europe as well as the Russians, the Germans were totally going to be in such awesome shape that they could cross the Atlantic and seriously threaten the US.

Really? You don't think the worlds best army, in control of the entire resources of continental Europe, fresh from having beaten the worlds largest army, was a viable threat to the 3rd rate, undermanned, underequipped, under-trained and unexperienced armed force which was the U.S. army at that point in time?

I mean, we're all greatful the U.S. helped out in WW2, but it wasn't until the end of the war, after the Russians had already turned the war around that it really started to have an impact in Europe. And we all know, the U.S. wasn't there just out of the goodness of your hearts. So saying that we can't expect the U.S. to rush to the rescue of it's allies in any future conflict is not unreasonable.

Machiavelli warned against allying with those who are stronger, because they don't need you, and are liable to abandon you when you are in the time of your greatest need and largest threat, at the greatest threat.

It's not an insult to the U.S., it's just a recognition of pragmatic facts.

Re: Let's start with WW2

[prisoner--24601.livejournal.com]

Really? You don't think the worlds best army, in control of the entire resources of continental Europe, fresh from having beaten the worlds largest army, was a viable threat to the 3rd rate, undermanned, underequipped, under-trained and unexperienced armed force which was the U.S. army at that point in time?

No. Because after fighting all of Europe and the Russians and taking all of the casualties and destruction of their infrastructure, they'd actually have to keep the territory that they took and spend a generation or two rebuilding. Then they'd have to cross the Atlantic ocean and tangle on the soil of a highly populated, very large and extremely industrialized nation that wasn't ravaged by two world wars.

So to say that we were in any immediate danger from Germany is pretty laughable. Any danger that may or may not have come would have been a generation or two later and even then it may or may not have ever happened.

So saying that we can't expect the U.S. to rush to the rescue of it's allies in any future conflict is not unreasonable..

What it is, is total bullshit. But hey, if the half a million American troops that died fighting fights that weren't ours, and the billions and billions of dollars of American tax money spent afterwords rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan aren't enough to convince you that America has a history of sticking by their European allies, then nothing will.

If something happened to England right now, the first country everyone come crying to is the US. And I think, given our history with England we deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Re: Let's start with WW2

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

No one is claiming you were in immediate danger. It was the eventual outcome of not intervening in the European war that worred the U.S.

What you talk about is exactly what the U.S. was fearful of, that after the Germans pacified Europe, they would be facing an enemy in control of the entire continent of Europe, the North of Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Against that would be the U.S. alone and isolated, with an unexperienced army which no-one up to that point took seriously. It doesn't matter that your potential industrial output was that high, because the Germans would be able to match it, plus they were allied with the Japanese, who would likely be in a similar position in Asia by that point.

Anyway, the thing is, of course the U.S. would PROBABLY come to the aid of England, but frankly, if you think the English should rely on it, simply because America has been a good ally in the past, you don't understand military history.