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

Discussion in 'House of Commons' started by Jeneral28, Sep 2, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Did their unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons bring about a more rapid elimination of those weapons, or are there now more countries with them?
    • Like Like x 2

  3. 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!
    • Like Like x 1
  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?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Yes. The world is full of mad foreigners, many of whom may need a slap.
  7. 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.
    • Like Like x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Sshhh. Close your eyes and go back to sleep. It's double French first thing and maths in the afternoon. You know how grumpy you always are on the first day back in too.
  9. 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.
    • Like Like x 5
  10. The most sensible post so far. Case closed I think.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. Political will for same does not exist.