To Nuke Or Not To Nuke – That is the Question.
 

With apologies to William Shakespeare!

It has been reported that Gordon Brown intends to spend £25bn (some pundits quote £20bn) to replace our nuclear deterrent. The decision has to be made soon - he claims, because it will take until 2020 to have the replacement ready for when our current nuclear subs and missiles reach the end of their life.

Since our four Trident carrying submarines were commissioned and brought into active service who has actually threatened the UK with a nuclear strike? Well there was …… and there was …… not forgetting …….! In fact no one. Even if someone had, does anyone think that we would have retaliated? We couldn’t because the nuclear weapons are under the control of Bush and Co and we would have to seek their permission before being able to launch even one. I doubt if that permission would be given unless the USA was also threatened.

When presenting an argument about nuclear weapons the experts and the pro nuclear lobby plus the manufacturers who make the darned things always refer to MAD- that is Mutually Assured Destruction. If one country has nukes the only way to prevent them from launching them at you is to have enough nukes to bring about MAD. Thus it was stalemate!

In the days of the ‘Cold War’ it made some sort of sense because we (the US really) didn’t know the Russians and were suspicious of them and likewise they didn’t know us (the US) and didn’t trust us. But now we are all pals together – well sort of – and neither side is likely to try a pre-emptive strike on the other even if the other side didn’t have any nukes.

In any case the capitalist world is too entrenched in its way of life that only a madman would even think about chucking a nuke at someone.

I doubt very much whether Gordon Brown or any of his minions will read this thread and report back to him but nonetheless I have a message for him.

Don’t waste OUR money on something that we do not need. We – Great Britain that is – are no longer a world power and haven’t been since 1945 in spite of President Blair’s attempts to look like a world leader. If you must spend some money on UK defence then give our current forces the RIGHT equipment to fight with – ALL OF IT. None of this, “here lads share this flack jacket between you”. Then spend the rest on improving our hospitals and schools.

Re: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke – That is the Question.
 

I still say that if there ever was a war, there's a good chance it will be a traditional war, on land, air, sea. People argue, no, no it would be nuclear, but why would it?. If a country wanted to destroy us, and yes some do, then yes, they could just nuke us, but what if they wanted to take over us, as a country, they wouldn't nuke us would they, so red dawn is perfectly possible.

Re: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke – That is the Question.
 

agree entirely jambutty, but what really gets my goat is the fact that commanders BUSH @ BLAIR don,t think its right for iran to enrich uranium cos they will make neuclear weapons which of coarse iran denies but the upshot to me is just sheer HYPOCRACY.

Re: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke – That is the Question.
 

Britain needs Trident as a detterant to others. Britain will never use it, but it sends out a clear message we are not to be messed with. Iran are busy building nukes left, right and center, and everybody knows Russia longs to be a super-power as it once was. It is important Britain has this important bargaining tool, otherwise we're just a toothless lion.

Re: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke – That is the Question.
 

Britain hasn’t been a lion with a full set of ivory in its noddle for years Alvin. We are and have been a poodle of the US of A for years. We are as close to being the 51st state of the USA as you can get without actually being one.

Our deterrent is not ours but under the control of Bush and if we wanted to retaliate against someone we would need Bush’s OK first. Unless the US was also threatened or attacked that OK would not be forthcoming. In the event of an altercation that could escalate to threaten the US the UK would be sacrificed to prevent it.

Although there may well be some factions in Russia that dream of being a super power once more, the people who matter have realised that commerce is the way to gain power - not force.

Look at Switzerland, they have been neutral for donkey’s years with no significant armed forces but they’ve done all right and not a nuke in site.

The powers that be in Westminster should grasp reality and that reality is that we are no longer a force to be reckoned with world wide, although our armed forces are some of the besting the world but rather poorly equipped.

Instead of wasting money on a sham we should be equipping our current armed forces with the right equipment to help them do the job properly and survive. No more sending in paper thin Land Rovers to patrol an area where roadside bombs are the norm.