To think that people have become irrationally comfortable with nuclear weapons and MAD

[PumpkinPiloter]

Jeremy Corbyn has been given a really tough time in the press regarding his stance on nuclear weapons.

I have also read many comments on here on various political threads recently that seem to suggest that Mutually Assured Destruction has been a positive force that keeps the western world peaceful.

I am a long way from being an expert on nuclear weapons but even I am aware that there have been many if not dozens of close calls concerning nuclear missiles from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Titan II missile explosion in Damascus, Ark.

185 out of a total of 195 countries seem to survive perfectly well without nuclear weapons. There is also the argument that by having nuclear weapons we become a target and it becomes much easier for us to be drawn into some form of global conflict simply by owning them.

The risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands/control of a terrorist organisation or someone with mental health issues is real.

I really can not get my head around why people feel these horrific weapons make them any safer in the UK.

I keep hearing people talk about the magic money tree and that there is no money. Am I being unreasonable to think we can't justify spending 200 billion on something so dangerous when we seem not have enough money for health care social care and education?

[ppeatfruit]

It IS about the money, armament manufacturers make massive amounts of money out of their deadly business, they always have, why do you reckon we have wars?

[WalkingOnLeg0]

If it came to tit for tat, do you really think ANYONE would be the winner? Effing ridiculous.

bangs head off wall< The whole point to MAD is that it prevents tit for tat. Sticking your head in the sand allows bad people to do bad things.

[squishysquirmy]

" But the reality is that they exist and unless you only want tyrannical dictators and terrorists to have them then we need to keep ours working. And what is the point in having them if you have a leader who refuses to push the big red button and tells everyone he wont press the big red button. "

...But Corbyn has committed to keeping them working.
He has not said that he would refuse to push the red button. He has said categorically that he would commit the "first strike". He has refused to say whether he would, or would not, retaliate if the UK was hit by another country.
To my mind, MAD is based on uncertainty - that world leaders can never be 100% sure whether or not another world leader will retaliate if they are hit.

And I do see the point of having Trident, even if Corbyn is not enthusiastic about using it; A nuclear deterrent is not just for Christmas, you know.

Out of interest: Does anyone on here think there would ever be grounds for us to make the first strike? I think not, and that such an action would be morally reprehensible, with huge significant, long lasting damage to our standing in the world.

With regards to being invaded: I think a well equipped army, navy and RAF is a much more appropriate way of preventing invasion than a nuclear deterrent.
The only possible use of us having nuclear arms (and I am still not 100% convinced) is against an enemy nuclear strike - not invasion by a conventional military force.

[user1496484020]

If all the good guys disarm, that leaves the rogues free to do whatever they like.

[ppeatfruit]

I agree squishy But there are so many other factors to take into account in warfare now, like bacteriological weapons and other vile inventions by both sides, to terrorists, how we do defend ourselves properly against the enemy within?

[Trifleorbust]

If a psychotic leader of another country (say, North Korea) decided to make a first strike, I doubt our having the capacity to counter that first strike would stop him/her.

And I think Corbyn was quite right to say he would not launch a first strike. What have the ordinary citizens of Russia, China, North Korea, or any other nation with nuclear weapons, ever done to any of us to deserve to be blasted off the face of the earth? Who here could genuinely give that order, knowing they would be killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

[Frankiestein401]

I think the main reason the UK has nuclear weapons today is to retain our place on the security council. There isn't much direct associated employment - small teams building the weapons, moving them around, safety testing and guarding - there is significant associated employment in the US - building the missiles and in the UK building and maintaining the submarines.

[PumpkinPiloter]

"Does anyone on here think there would ever be grounds for us to make the first strike?"

This is one of my problems with MAD I think the most likely scenario where we would commit to a first strike is in the mistaken belief that it was in fact a retaliation.

As I am fairly sure you know squishy this has almost happened a few times already in other countries and only having the right person in the right place in the right time willing to disobey orders actually stopped it.

[PumpkinPiloter]

Defence treaties do not go away if nuclear weapons do.

It seems to me that we are fairly reliant on the USA for trident support:

"Without the cooperation of the US, says the report of the independent all-party Trident Commission, the life expectancy of the UK's nuclear capability could be measured in months"

So I guess we are dependent on other countries for defence whether we have nuclear weapons or not.

The same arguments (amongst others) are used for gun sales being legal in the USA.

If the bad guys have guns we have to have guns. But in reality it just makes it more likely you will ultimately get shot perhaps even with your own weapon.

In the end of the day I am not surprised many people disagree with me but I am surprised that the very notion that someone might not be a supporter of nuclear weapons is such a political negative.

[ppeatfruit]

True Pumpkin The power that the US has over Gt. Britain is frightening esp. now with the weirdest leader in place, and our moving out of the EU.

[PumpkinPiloter]

It's interesting isn't it ppeatfruit?

One of the big reasons I supported remain was the fact that the EU made the UK (and other EU members safer from conflict).

Many of these same people now seem to think that nuclear weapons are vital to the defence of this country and that to be anti nuclear weapons or even anti first strike makes you somehow unpatriotic.

Given that Trident will cost at least 4 billion a year and perhaps much more and is basicaly reliant on the US I would rather pay the EU membership as I think the security it offers our nation is far superior.

[ppeatfruit]

Some people seem to think that Churchhill was anti the EU when he actually instigated it to PREVENT war!

[squishysquirmy]

ppeatfruit : Exactly. Nuclear weapons do nothing to protect us from either terrorism or cyber attacks, nor would they even protect us (in my opinion) from a conventional attack with conventional weapons.

PumpkinPiloter : I do sometimes wonder how much of the fact that the cold war didn't go nuclear was down to pure luck. Maybe it was, maybe not. I don't know how we would ever know for sure.