Philip Hammond says unilateral nuclear disarmament is not the way for the uk

#1
On the last point, I think that history teaches us that unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons is not the way to bring about a more rapid elimination of those weapons, much as we would all like to see that happen
Today Defence's questions in the HOC, 2/9/2013.

What history? South Africa unilaterally removed its nuclear weapons and I dont see it being attacked.
 
#2
Today Defence's questions in the HOC, 2/9/2013.

What history? South Africa unilaterally removed its nuclear weapons and I dont see it being attacked.
Did their unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons bring about a more rapid elimination of those weapons, or are there now more countries with them?
 
#3
Today Defence's questions in the HOC, 2/9/2013.

What history? South Africa unilaterally removed its nuclear weapons and I dont see it being attacked.


Have you looked at the state of the "rainbow nation" recently? No one in their right mind would want to invade it what with the rampant aids, car jackings, rapes & general daily mayhem. With the possible exception of China who I'm sure wouldn't worry too much about international condemnation and whose PLA would not let "human rights" stand in their way should the locals get a bit lippy!
 
#4
What ex_c said. A guy I worked with GTFO some years ago, and came to live here in NI under the grandparent rule. He described to me how one of his neighbours in SA was murdered for her shopping.
 
#5
Ok maybe not SA but what? So nuclear weapons are a must for the uk forever?
 
#8
Ok maybe not SA but what? So nuclear weapons are a must for the uk forever?
Until such a time as the bat shit crazy nations that have them, or are developing get rid of them. I'd prefer we keep them.

Although many people, myself included would love o see a nuclear free world.You can't uninvent the things. It's a bit like land mines. They're banned, but they can quickly be made. If everybody got rid of them, then the race turns into who an rebuild the the quickest.


The world is not a place of niceness and equality. It's a dark and horrible place, so I'd prefer the more civilized countries that have actually demonstrated their civility by not starting world wars, but by bankrupting themselves to stop them steer the world through to a brighter future. Otherwise I see a world where by they'll be mass conversion to Sunni or Shia extremism, but this time instead of it being at the point of a sword, it'll be under the threat of nuclear holocaust.



EDIT. You may or may not have noticed, but ever since SA got rid of theirs, other than Nelson Mandella. Nobody gives a shit about the country anymore.
 
#9
#11
Ok maybe not SA but what? So nuclear weapons are a must for the uk forever?
Yes, unless the UK can source a credible alternative.

The world has many nut jobs, dictator's and power crazy trigger happy lunatics who'll quite happily strike terror into another Country at the earliest opportunity if they know they can get away with it with very little fuss.

Being a Defenceless Non-Capability Nation may suit the tree hugging lefties but most of us live in a pragmatic 'real' world.
 
#12
Yes, unless the UK can source a credible alternative.

The world has many nut jobs, dictator's and power crazy trigger happy lunatics who'll quite happily strike terror into another Country at the earliest opportunity if they know they can get away with it with very little fuss.

Being a Defenceless Non-Capability Nation may suit the tree hugging lefties but most of us live in a pragmatic 'real' world.
The most sensible post so far. Case closed I think.
 
#13
Nuclear weapons are the humane alternative to chemical weapons - but they're expensive to develop, construct and, importantly, maintain.

South Africa may well have been the country renowned for getting rid of its nukes but it doubtless still retains the capability for producing chemical and biological weapons.

A major difference between nuclear and chemical/biological weapons is that with chemical, you have to maintain friendly terms with the country that's upwind of you. There are no countries upwind of South Africa.
 
#14
Until such a time as the bat shit crazy nations that have them, or are developing get rid of them. I'd prefer we keep them.

Although many people, myself included would love o see a nuclear free world.You can't uninvent the things. It's a bit like land mines. They're banned, but they can quickly be made. If everybody got rid of them, then the race turns into who an rebuild the the quickest.


The world is not a place of niceness and equality. It's a dark and horrible place, so I'd prefer the more civilized countries that have actually demonstrated their civility by not starting world wars, but by bankrupting themselves to stop them steer the world through to a brighter future. Otherwise I see a world where by they'll be mass conversion to Sunni or Shia extremism, but this time instead of it being at the point of a sword, it'll be under the threat of nuclear holocaust.



EDIT. You may or may not have noticed, but ever since SA got rid of theirs, other than Nelson Mandella. Nobody gives a shit about the country anymore.
So you are saying having nuclear weapons is great? Terrorists can destroy British troops with cheap IEDs while the UK has four submarines whose weapons were never fired back at the Taliban?
 
#16
Nuclear weapons are the humane alternative to chemical weapons - but they're expensive to develop, construct and, importantly, maintain.

South Africa may well have been the country renowned for getting rid of its nukes but it doubtless still retains the capability for producing chemical and biological weapons.

A major difference between nuclear and chemical/biological weapons is that with chemical, you have to maintain friendly terms with the country that's upwind of you. There are no countries upwind of South Africa.
humane? how? are they really that safe? Why use them to solve the world problems? Isn't that what Assad is doing?
 
#17
The most sensible post so far. Case closed I think.
again then i ask, why not nuke Afghanistan? The fallout will after all kill most terrorists and Iran (dictatorship) and Pakistan and India (then it will stop the need to give aid there)
 
#18
So you are saying having nuclear weapons is great? Terrorists can destroy British troops with cheap IEDs while the UK has four submarines whose weapons were never fired back at the Taliban?
Different platform for a different problem set. A Mastiff for example isn't going to stop somebody opening up a couple of cans of Instant Sunshine over us, or threatening to.

We have Destroyers, that can't stop the TB, but again, they're a different platform for a different problem set.


We're about to get a shiney new aircraft carrier? That's not going to stop the TB. But it's a different platform for a different problem set.

Military defence is not just about uppity wog bashing in Helmand. It's a little bit more balanced than that.

Are you one of these people who seems to think that because we're in AFG we should be focusing all of our procurement and Doctrine on AFG? What happens when we pull out? Shall we hope that we're operating n another environment like Helmand?
 
#19
So you are saying having nuclear weapons is great? Terrorists can destroy British troops with cheap IEDs while the UK has four submarines whose weapons were never fired back at the Taliban?
They wouldn't be able to if there were no British troops in Afg, which seems far more sensible to me then nuclear disarmament.


So long as anyone else on the planet has them, we should keep them.
If everyone else gets rid of theirs, then we should definitely keep ours!
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#20
So you are saying having nuclear weapons is great? Terrorists can destroy British troops with cheap IEDs while the UK has four submarines whose weapons were never fired back at the Taliban?
I didn't realise we had any nuclear subs in Afghanistan :???:
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top