h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

well

In relation to what Happy?

Given their distructive power and potential for misuse I'd have to say NO!
Given that unilateral disarmament is as likely as an ELE asteroid strike next Thing (Thursday for you heathens) then the answer is yes ()

I'd love for them not to exist but they do and there is little political will to rid the World of them and little mileage in any debate about whether we should have them or not!

turvy

A considered "yes". I'm completely convinced that without them conventional war would have broken out between the USSR and her satellites and NATO sometime in the 1950s costing millions of lives. Ironically, the "ultimate weapon" has actually made war between the superpowers and great powers unwinable and ensured crippling destruction on anyone who starts one.

Overall, I think the world is safer with them than without them. For all the talk of "nuclear holocaust" during the cold war (which would never have actually happened due to M.A.D.) people forget that we had two real mass-slaughters before nuclear weapons called "World War I" and "World War II". Looked at objectively (and I appreciate the irony because, as I've said, nukes are designed in theory to kill more than both wars did) atomic weapons put an end to that.

Of course, currently nihilists and apocalypse nuts haven't managed to obtain nuclear arsenals and by their very definition they aren't likely to fear M.A.D. so I could be wrong...

If a smaller nation, say the UK, we to unilaterally give up its nuclear arms, wouldn't that mean we opt out of the game of mutually assured destruction? Our potential foes would have no reason to aim nukes at us because we wouldn't be a nuclear threat. It'd be more difficult for the US as it would remain a significant threat with just their convential weapons.

Nuclear weapons are morally indefensible. Especially strategic nuclear weapons whose main purpose take out entire cities of non-combatants.

Overall, a "no".

Ste

"Nuclear weapons are morally indefensible. Especially strategic nuclear weapons whose main purpose take out entire cities of non-combatants."

You have to differentiate between using them and simply owning them for deterrent purposes. It's one thing to obtain nukes for the purposes of attacking and destroying an enemy, quite another to obtain them for the purposes of ensuring an enemy does not attack you.

After WWII and the two American attacks on Japan, I think the rush for nuclear weapons by the world's major powers and the superpowers was primarily motivated by the second objective. Despite what we're generally told, I think France, Britain the Soviets and China were thinking more along the lines of "get these and we can't be attacked by them" rather than "lets get these and then destroy ".

Zagreb, what are your thoughts on how North Korea, India & Pakistan think

And if the USA thinks that way why are they developing weapons that blur the distinction between conventional weapons and nuclear ones
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049

Their role in nuclear was is to obliterate whole cities. Even having such capabilities in the hands of people is a powerful argument against nuclear weapons. We've all seen the rationale behind a certain war started by a certain superpower's government recently. Also, we are relying on the opposing side's people being as equally rational and sane. Let's look at North Korea: Led by an utter loony. Has nukes.

It is not worth the risk of total destruction of everyone. These are not weapons of defence, but weapons of attack.

The world should enter into a phase of total nuclear disarmament. Is this likely? No, but we'd be better off if it did.

Ste

Everyone should have one... or two ... certainly whilst we've a war mad lunatic in charge of teh biggest military power on the plannet, you don't know when a nut case like that might use them....

Morning all,

It is pretty simple really. Brought down to a basic situation with which we might be familiar - Would you rather walk peaceably into a city pub at 6'4" and weighing 16 stone or more, built like a rugger player - or 5'6" and weighing about 9 stone?

Given that I am happy , kindly and peaceful man I would be at ease to be the former. I am not going to hit anyone - but no-one is likeky to hit me!

Novo

Exactly WHO are we deterring with these weapons? The Russians? Didn't think so. The Chinese? Let's not be silly. Middle Eastern 'Rogue' states who we KNOW don't have the capability to deliver a payload that far?

Let's face it, we no longer NEED to deter anyone except the type of fanatics who won't be deterred anyway. The only meaningful threat is 'One more terrorist bomb and we turn the Middle East into glass' and that isn't going to convince anyone except the sort of fanatics we need to be deterring who will join up in even greater numbers.

"Middle Eastern 'Rogue' states who we KNOW don't have the capability to deliver a payload that far?"

The Vanguard class SSBN Ballistic submarines of the Royal Navy can deliver a Trident II D5 missile pretty much anywhere on the planet.

This may be going off topic a little, but quite frankly, the Vanguards are now the biggest white elephant we've got...

If (and I stress IF) there is still a need for a nuclear deterrant nowadays, the idea of spending billions to hide it underwater seems a little bit of a waste of time.

Given current and future threat's I'd have thought it'd be a lot more economical to give the bombs back to the RAF and buy them a couple of American B2s as a christmas present.

We cannot fire our nukes without USAsian permission.

Where do you get that little gem from?

Sorry to disagree WA, but we can.
The RN's nuclear missiles are under the sole authority of the British government - the US authorities (president, congress, military) have absolutely no say in it.
On the other side of the coin, no one can tell us to fire them if we don't want to, either; NATO could ask us to use them, but only the UK government can agree to do so.


Getting back to the original question...

Yes - unfortunately. The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. The only other deterrent to mass warfare is chemical weapons, but they don't appear to be nasty enough to deter everyone from their use. The threat of nuclear war during the Cold War forced just enough people to retain just enough sense not to go down the war route, and it's just as viable today against rogue states. Israel is widely believed to have 'made it known' to the nations it perceives as its enemies that it is willing to use nukes as a last resort. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but the 'no smoke without fire' feeling might just deter some idiots for long enough for some sense to be seen.

- Casper
The friendly hootoo

I think what WanderingAlbatross is perhaps referring to is NATO’s nuclear policy of nuclear sharing in which nuclear weapons are made available to non-nuclear weapon states in time of war, as a nuclear weapon state this obviously does not apply to the UK but the air forces of Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands still train its personnel to fly planes carrying nuclear weapons (as did Greece until recently).

>Israel is widely believed to have 'made it known' to the nations it perceives as its enemies that it is willing to use nukes as a last resort. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but the 'no smoke without fire' feeling might just deter some idiots for long enough for some sense to be seen.<

Hmm. Difficult to see exactly what the Israeli's gain out of that (if it's true). They are already perceived as being the rogue 'super power' by most of the Arab world and threatening a lot of people who don't have them with nukes isn't likely to improve their reputation.

No what I was refering to was an article in The Independent, 6th November 2005, by Cole Moreton:

"The myth was built on memories of Britain standing alone against the enemy in 1940. But that could only be repeated if the UK fell out with the USA - and if such a thing happened, America could shut down the British Trident force within 18 months, simply by refusing to co-operate.

The blueprints, engines, fuel and guidance systems are American. Lockheed-Martin, a US corporation, is one of the three companies managing Aldermaston. Washington knows where that elusive British submarine on patrol today is hiding, and where it's going. The missiles can't be fired without information from American satellites.

So MPs can rage all they like about not getting a vote, and the Prime Minister can warm his hands on Britain's apparent status as a nuclear power, but when it comes to replacing Trident, whatever the cost, one outcome is more likely than anything else: we will wait and see what America does. Then copy it."

UK 'covered up' Israeli nuke deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4515708.stm

UK helped Israel get nuclear bomb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4743987.stm

Mordechai Vanunu, Israeli nuclear scientist who spilled the beans on the the Israeli nuclear weapons project
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4459371.stm

Nuclear weapons: Who has what?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4256599.stm

>The Vanguard class SSBN Ballistic submarines of the Royal Navy can deliver a Trident II D5 missile pretty much anywhere on the planet.<

See the giveaway words? *of the Royal Navy*. Last time I looked, the Royal Navy (nor indeed the US, Russian or Chinese Navys) was not at the disposal of tin-pot Middle eastern dictators. All of whom lack either the capability to build or deliver a nuclear weapon 'anywhere in the world'. (Or did I miss the point of the WMD scandal in Iraq? )

And I have to say WA, that may be what you were refering to, but it most certainly *isn't* what you said. The future of our nuclear deterrent, both in terms of mainatenance and shape may indeed be partly in the hands of the US, but our use of it is not.