Trident

[Spud]

Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

If chemical weapons are banned internationally, why not nuclear weapons?

[Walter]

Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

If chemical weapons are banned internationally, why not nuclear weapons?

well they make lovely paterns in the sky 😱

[Robbie]

Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

If chemical weapons are banned internationally, why not nuclear weapons?

My view of course is that there should be unilateral disarmament, always believed that. However many folk think having nuclear weapons is a deterrent to enemies & that's why we still have them. Polaris went which caused great joy in the peace movement, then we had Trident (something else in between the two iirc).

[SteveH]

I absolutely agree with you, which makes a nice change. As CND likes to point out, they cost vast sums, and at best will never be used.

[Nearly Sane]

I absolutely agree with you, which makes a nice change. As CND likes to point out, they cost vast sums, and at best will never be used.

Christmad(sic) nom de plume, Steve? Good for you! I might do the same.

And I agree. Trident is a phallic substitute for power and relevance. Get rid.

[SteveH]

Ilike to use a daft name evry os often.

[Roses]

Until every country relinquishes its nuclear weapons I think it would be a huge mistake for the UK to disarm.

[SteveH]

Until every country relinquishes its nuclear weapons I think it would be a huge mistake for the UK to disarm.

Well, it'll never happen, in that case. What terrible consequence do you imagine would follow unilateral disarmament by the UK?

[Roses]

Well, it'll never happen, in that case. What terrible consequence do you imagine would follow unilateral disarmament by the UK?

We would be much more vulnerable, if we disarmed, imo.

[SteveH]

We would be much more vulnerable, if we disarmed, imo.

Vulnerable to what? How do all the countries that haven't got nuclear weapons survive?

[Roses]

Vulnerable to what? How do all the countries that haven't got nuclear weapons survive?

The Russians seem to be making a nuisance of themselves where the UK is concerned, their planes and ships are often being chased off by our fighter planes. I should think Putin would be delighted if the UK got rid of its weapons. Fortunately it ain't going to happen whilst Boris is on the throne!

[SteveH]

The Russians seem to be making a nuisance of themselves where the UK is concerned, their planes and ships are often being chased off by our fighter planes. I should think Putin would be delighted if the UK got rid of its weapons. Fortunately it ain't going to happen whilst Boris is on the throne!

And how have our nuclear weapons helped in resisting Russian incursions? How could they help?

[Anchorman]

Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

If chemical weapons are banned internationally, why not nuclear weapons?

 


Nope.
I first demonstrated alongside Christian CND and the Iona community against Polaris in 1978.
I'm delighted to say that that was the year the Church of Scotland endorsed its' opposition to nuclear weapons in general, and them being based near Scotland's biggest city in particular...a position the Kirk has debated four times since, each time affirming opposition.
Scotland's  parliament (not just the SNP government_ has opposed this menace twice, as have the Convention of Scottish local Authorities (COSLA), the STUC, etc.
Time they were listened to.
Get this abomination away from these islands.

[Walter]

Ilike to use a daft name evry os often.

i prefer to ignore the Oliphant in the room !

[Anchorman]

Until every country relinquishes its nuclear weapons I think it would be a huge mistake for the UK to disarm.

 



Great.
You can park them next to your town, then.
And, while you're at it, can you take the Polaris subs now rotting near Edinburgh? They have still not been decomissioned and their reactors removed.

[SteveH]

i prefer to ignore the Oliphant in the room !
[/quote

[Aruntraveller]

The Russians seem to be making a nuisance of themselves where the UK is concerned, their planes and ships are often being chased off by our fighter planes. I should think Putin would be delighted if the UK got rid of its weapons. Fortunately it ain't going to happen whilst Boris is on the throne!

So in what circumstances would you use Nuclear weapons?

I ask because leaders say we maintain them as a deterrent. If so, and we are attacked by nuclear weapons would you use it then? Because they have clearly at that point failed as a deterrent. If you do retaliate it is then game over for everyone. No one wins. SO why are we maintaining weapons that we will only ever use as a response which will bring about the end of this world as we know it?

Added on to that is the cock up theory. As we have seen in other areas where high-tech operation systems exist (think Boeing 737 Max) - there are often unforeseen consequences as a result of upgrades or new systems. Why are we such stupid risk takers?

[Roses]

I wish nuclear weapons had never been created, but since they have, and the only country to own them was stupid enough to use them knowing there would be no reprisals, it seems to make sense to hold on to ours. Since WW2 they have acted as a deterrent and have not been used again, thank goodness. It would be great if every country who has a nuclear capability disarmed, and could be proved to have done so, but until that time comes, the UK should hold onto its weapons, imo.

[Walter]

Anchs;

Christian CND ? The sense of being at the height of moral superiority must have been overwhelming 😇

[Gordon]

'MAD' is a mad policy, and always will be, and it does seem unlikely that the UK would ever use them - so they are an expensive white elephant. Plus they are just a half hour drive from where I'm sitting right now - so, target-wise, those of us located in this part of Scotland are quite close to a likely bulls-eye.

When Scotland becomes independent, which given the recent GE result and since the UK will tank under a Tory Brexit that is now a real possibility, then we'll see the back of them: but I'm sure they'd look lovely moored in the Thames, or maybe in Portsmouth.

[Anchorman]

Anchs;

Christian CND ? The sense of being at the height of moral superiority must have been overwhelming 😇

Mope. Mucky, wet, asnd the only compensation for the above two being tea - or lager, if we were not fortunate enough to be arrested.

[SteveH]

I wish nuclear weapons had never been created, but since they have, and the only country to own them was stupid enough to use them knowing there would be no reprisals, it seems to make sense to hold on to ours. Since WW2 they have acted as a deterrent and have not been used again, thank goodness. It would be great if every country who has a nuclear capability disarmed, and could be proved to have done so, but until that time comes, the UK should hold onto its weapons, imo.

How about answering the points made?

[jeremyp]

Well, it'll never happen, in that case. What terrible consequence do you imagine would follow unilateral disarmament by the UK?

]The worst consequence is that lots of people will lose their jobs.

[jeremyp]

So in what circumstances would you use Nuclear weapons?

I ask because leaders say we maintain them as a deterrent. If so, and we are attacked by nuclear weapons would you use it then? Because they have clearly at that point failed as a deterrent. If you do retaliate it is then game over for everyone. No one wins. SO why are we maintaining weapons that we will only ever use as a response which will bring about the end of this world as we know it?

Because, if you don't have nuclear weapons, another country that does have them can hold you hostage.

[SteveH]

Because, if you don't have nuclear weapons, another country that does have them can hold you hostage.

Then why aren't all the many countries that don't have nuclear weapons being held hostage?