Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Would you support removal of UK nuclear weapons if we had alternative?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Would you support removal of nuclear Weapons?
    Yes
    43.42%
    No
    50.00%
    Maybe
    6.58%

    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If we had defence shield like america would you agree for removal?

    Please people who live in Scotland don't vote on the poll if you're for Independence.
    • 41 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If, by "defence shield", you mean a very large collection of rockets that will be launched en-masse with the faint hope of hitting an inbound warhead - then no.

    The US missile defence system is currently something akin to keeping a large box of bricks in your living room, in case a wild boar rushes in and you need to throw something at it.

    On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if most people on TSR believe that the Americans have some kind of forcefield powered by quantum singularity, that they can switch on and off with the flick of a switch (located in Area 51, of course).
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would always support the removal of nuclear weapons regardless...
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well I already believe we should move towards nuclear disarmament, I don't think nuclear weapons have any real use besides ensuring mutual destruction so I'd say yes. Not because of the whole defence shield thing, just because I support removal of nuclear weapons already.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It depends entirely upon what you mean by 'alternative', if you mean something like an actual working version of the old style 'star wars' programme, then yes.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    I would always support the removal of nuclear weapons regardless...
    Location: Scotland

    yeah... your opinion is not valid. (Based on the fact that Scotland voted for SNP of which don't want nuclear weapons).

    If Scotland does vote Independence then nuclear weapons should be moved to "berwick upon tweed".

    But yeah i personally want alternative to nuclear weapons :P
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    I would always support the removal of nuclear weapons regardless...
    Agreed, I don't think there is ever any need for nuclear weapons.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    Location: Scotland

    yeah... your opinion is not valid. (Based on the fact that Scotland voted for SNP of which don't want nuclear weapons).

    If Scotland does vote Independence then nuclear weapons should be moved to "berwick upon tweed".

    But yeah i personally want alternative to nuclear weapons :P
    Why does that make my opinion invalid? Regardless of whether I'm pro indy or not I still think the United Kingdom as well as other countries need to gradually move towards complete nuclear disarmament.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Well I already believe we should move towards nuclear disarmament, I don't think nuclear weapons have any real use besides ensuring mutual destruction so I'd say yes. Not because of the whole defence shield thing, just because I support removal of nuclear weapons already.
    Yes because a contract to ensure nobody has nuclear weapons isn't an invitation for countries to produce illegal weaponry against which we haven't the slightest defence.

    Nobody likes nuclear warheads but they're safer where they are than dismantled, because at the moment everyone is too scared to use them. And a zappy ray gun is demonstrably impractical. I can't see a way of preventing warheads from hitting their target except to prevent their launch, and MAD does that.

    Sad, but true. I wish we didn't have to!
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    Why does that make my opinion invalid? Regardless of whether I'm pro indy or not I still think the United Kingdom as well as other countries need to gradually move towards complete nuclear disarmament.
    Well no, If Scotland were to come independent then UK nuclear weapons will be moved the REST is not of your concern. Its the same principal of leaving matters to the respected country.

    If of course you wish to remain in the UK then of course you can discus matters that affect the UK.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Since no shield is a hundred % effective I'm going to say no. Even if there is only 1% chance of a nuclear attack getting through I would not support it.
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schemilix)
    Yes because a contract to ensure nobody has nuclear weapons isn't an invitation for countries to produce illegal weaponry against which we haven't the slightest defence.

    Nobody likes nuclear warheads but they're safer where they are than dismantled, because at the moment everyone is too scared to use them. And a zappy ray gun is demonstrably impractical. I can't see a way of preventing warheads from hitting their target except to prevent their launch, and MAD does that.

    Sad, but true. I wish we didn't have to!
    So we should produce such horrific objects purely for the ability to stare countries we don't like in the face and flex our muscles at them, trying to scare them into backing down?

    If they actually worked as a deterrent to other countries then their existence wouldn't have spread like wildfire. All they mean now is that when someone sets theirs off (and I'm betting it'll be America) we're going to be able to take someone else down with us.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. We might want to use them aggressively.

    They are the perfect offensive weapon. The surprising aspect of world history since '45 is the lack of usage of nuclear weaponry.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    Well no, If Scotland were to come independent then UK nuclear weapons will be moved the REST is not of your concern. Its the same principal of leaving matters to the respected country.

    If of course you wish to remain in the UK then of course you can discus matters that affect the UK.
    Frankly even if I was no longer part of the United Kingdom I would still be concerned at the presence of nuclear weapons just on my doorstep. I mean, Great Britain is not a large island, and nuclear weapons just paint a great big target on whichever country possesses them. I'm concerned that every country has nuclear weapons and I would support any country to dispose of them.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    So we should produce such horrific objects purely for the ability to stare countries we don't like in the face and flex our muscles at them, trying to scare them into backing down?

    If they actually worked as a deterrent to other countries then their existence wouldn't have spread like wildfire. All they mean now is that when someone sets theirs off (and I'm betting it'll be America) we're going to be able to take someone else down with us.
    M'kay. Let's dismantle all our weaponry - oh look, the UK has no nuclear warheads! They can't destroy us if we destroy them! Sure the US would step in for us, but if the US is the only one, that's bad, and is the US gets rid of them, everyone is defenceless.

    Believe it or not, MAD is a thing. A country is less likely to fire on us if doing so will completely destroy them. It has nothing to do with aggression and 'flexing muscles' - it's not even having a bigger stick, it's just defensive. The point is if everyone gets rid of their nukes, someone will make a few, and then whoever they don't like is ****ed because there's nothing stopping them wiping out several major cities.

    A globewide treaty wouldn't work because even if everyone signed, some people would break the treaty. It's not magic. Pandora's box has been opened, and now it will never close. Best to keep the demons on a leash in clear sight than find them springing on us.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    Frankly even if I was no longer part of the United Kingdom I would still be concerned at the presence of nuclear weapons just on my doorstep. I mean, Great Britain is not a large island, and nuclear weapons just paint a great big target on whichever country possesses them. I'm concerned that every country has nuclear weapons and I would support any country to dispose of them.
    :laugh: I don't care, the UK can place the nuclear weapons anywhere within their boundary. As I said previously you want independence you lose that right to have that discussion with the UK. It is that simple.

    You can't have this expectation that once you have independence that there should be no nuclear weapons in great Britain. I seriously hope you are not suggesting that
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If the only thing you're gonna replace them with is defense shields then definitely not. They don't shoot them out of the sky like you think they do.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Persia I)
    If the only thing you're gonna replace them with is defense shields then definitely not. They don't shoot them out of the sky like you think they do.
    Expand?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    :laugh: I don't care, the UK can place the nuclear weapons anywhere within their boundary. As I said previously you want independence you lose that right to have that discussion with the UK. It is that simple.

    You can't have this expectation that once you have independence that there should be no nuclear weapons in great Britain. I seriously hope you are not suggesting that
    Independence is not even part of my argument. There should be no nuclear weapons in Scotland, Great Britain, Russia, Israel and Fiji. They should not exist anywhere. I'm glad Scotland has elected a sensible government which is anti-nukes. They are a pointless waste of every resource used to make them.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't vote for let alone support anyone who advocated such a policy.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 25, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.