Classic British Flight Sim

A hot debate in the papers recently seems to be the UK's Independent Nuclear Deterrent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm

What is the view here?

I personally think that we'd be silly to give it up when others are developing weapons of their own.

The Guardian reading types seem to think otherwise though...

My view is...........................................................




Regards

Sean

I'm one of those that is undecided

In a perfect world we could all give up the damn things, but since that's not going to happen any time soon, I suppose we have to keep them as a deterrant. I see it like a Pandora's box opening - we've got them, other countries have, we know what they can do, and there is no way we're going to close the lid on it now. Even if we all did, the technology is still there and someone would develop it again and hold all the aces.

Sticky subject indeed. Personally I think we should have them, but I'm not for further developing the programme further. I mean, what's the point?

I think Nazca_Steve has it about right. Horrible things but they exist, and in a world where looney dictatorships are trying to develop them I feel Britain should retain and update them as necessary.

Just to make things more difficult:

Would you be prepared to push the button? I don't know how bad things would have to be before I could.

If terrorists exploded a nuclear bomb in a western country who could you retaliate against?

One last thought though, the fact that George W and His Tonyness control these things (at least in theory) doesn't really make me feel safer.

Jon

Its not my place to say if Britain should keep the bomb or not. In 15 years who knows what the world is going to look like and what nations are going to be rivals. If you give up the bomb its going to be hard to get it back but if you have it and decide its not needed they can be scrapped pretty quickly.

If Britain needs a deterrent, who might it need to deter?

You know France has the bomb, and now that the tunnel that Napoleon dreamed of to in invade Britain has been completed.....

I did a fair bit of research on the potential impact of nuclear weapons (of the sort of technology that has existed for the last 40 years, not the WWII variety) a few years ago, if they were used, and the findings were pretty scary and go a long way to explain the viewpoint of the anti-nuclear community.

However, that "if" is very crucial. People seem to ignore the word "deterrent" when talking about nuclear weapons. It isnt really there to be used, except in some doomsday scenario. It merely has to exist to preserve the "stalemate" situation if anyone were to threaten us. Although the Cold War is over, you never know what is round the next corner, so I advocate keeping the deterrent.

Something Trident-sized (I mean the missile, not the usual Trident I talk about!) probably reasonably qualifies as a deterrent. Some of the 50 megaton yield stuff that was being designed at the height of the Cold War to my mind would not! So I have absolutely no problem with us maintain a (relatively) small arsenal because it acts as a warnign to others not to bother attacking you.

Become like NZ!!!! Become nuclear free (apart from a nuclear research laboratories around the country, but that doesnt matter!!!) and get on bad terms with the US and take 20 years to try and get to some sort of footing with them.

Then you can get rid of the attack squadrons in the RAF and become a government run airline!!

:roll: :doho:

James

Damned sheep herders...... :roll: :roll:

(BTW, just kidding....)

my feelings as well Sean
what comes around goes around
karma........
all that stuff
but then again.........
sometimes your forced to deal with the hell bent
mental case
sometimes.........
you'll get the attention of the head case quicker
with a kind word and a gun
then with just a kind word

Joe