Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
  • 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:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    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.
    Then stay on topic. I asked for opinions based on the UK(Excluding for independence).
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    I wouldn't vote for let alone support anyone who advocated such a policy.
    o why?
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    o why?
    I think we need them in a world of ever increasing uncertainty. I don't rate the alternatives much anyway.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm up for a joint nuclear shield for Northern Europe. I don't want a Europe-wide one because it will be too much to cater for a large area but I don't think the UK needs one just for itself. Remember, we have them to keep the peace between major powers. Anything that nukes the UK will affect Northern Europe as well so it at least our interests would still be protected.

    In terms of replacing a nuclear shield with an alternative it depends on what the hell it is.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    Then stay on topic. I asked for opinions based on the UK(Excluding for independence).
    No nukes in the UK please.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schemilix)
    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.
    So the main argument behind keeping them remains, at least we can destroy someone else? Gee, what a great basis for an argument from a supposedly civilised society.

    It is having a bigger stick, flexing muscles - It's simply us standing there and saying, you destroy us, we destroy you (of course if we didn't go about helping the US arm it's enemies, then declare war on them there'd be less of an issue but still...), if everyone gets rid of their nukes, then there's no need for people to be making them, because they don't need to have a system to at least make sure they take someone down with them.



    (Original post by FinalMH)
    Then stay on topic. I asked for opinions based on the UK(Excluding for independence).
    Hold on, you were the one who brought the whole independence thing up in the first place.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    No nukes in the UK please.

    It wasn't me that even brought nationalities into question, it was that other guy.
    It was me but yeah i get your point
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    It was me but yeah i get your point

    Getting seriously confused with who I'm quoting here.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    So .
    Yeah based on opinions who are not for independence.... People who are for independence are most likely anti nuclear

    (Original post by Electronica)
    ..
    ....
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    Yeah based on opinions who are not for independence.... People who are for independence are most likely anti nuclear



    ....
    People who are anti nuclear are not most likely for independence. :juggle:

    Like me...
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    Expand?
    The state of the art missile defence systems will only work efficiently on older missiles and also a limited amount. It's basically throwing a missile at the incoming missile in hopes of destroying it before it makes impact with its intended target which doesn't seem like a very good deterrent to me. People seem to have this idea that when a country has a missile defence it's completely impervious to all missile attacks and to answer OP, of course not because they don't offer anywhere near the same level of protection as nukes.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Persia I)
    The state of the art missile defence systems will only work efficiently on older missiles and also a limited amount. It's basically throwing a missile at the incoming missile in hopes of destroying it before it makes impact with its intended target which doesn't seem like a very good deterrent to me. People seem to have this idea that when a country has a missile defence it's completely impervious to all missile attacks and to answer OP, of course not because they don't offer anywhere near the same level of protection as nukes.
    Ever tried shooting down a nuke with a nuke? :hmmm:

    You're MAD.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    So the main argument behind keeping them remains, at least we can destroy someone else? Gee, what a great basis for an argument from a supposedly civilised society.

    It is having a bigger stick, flexing muscles - It's simply us standing there and saying, you destroy us, we destroy you (of course if we didn't go about helping the US arm it's enemies, then declare war on them there'd be less of an issue but still...), if everyone gets rid of their nukes, then there's no need for people to be making them, because they don't need to have a system to at least make sure they take someone down with them.
    If everyone destroys their nuclear weapons, what's to stop Iran making one then and nuking Israel? There's nothing to stop them, no deterrent and they have already expressed their desire to destroy the country.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electronica)
    Ever tried shooting down a nuke with a nuke? :hmmm:

    You're MAD.
    Like the pun. :rofl:

    No I meant having the prospect of us launching a nuclear attack on them will be a better deterrence than a missile defence system.

    Now you mention it I read about a Russian anti-ballistic missile which is a nuke itself. :lol:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Persia I)
    Like the pun. :rofl:

    No I meant having the prospect of us launching a nuclear attack on them will be a better deterrence than a missile defence system.

    Now you mention it I read about a Russian anti-ballistic missile which is a nuke itself. :lol:
    Yes, I understood that even through my amusing anecdote.
    I'm just saying, what happens when one crazy leader calls another leader's bluff?
    What happens if nobody calls anyone's bluff? Then the nukes are a waste of bloody time in the first place.

    What really needs to happen is they must be confiscated from every country and put on a really high shelf. So that crazy Americans and North Koreans alike don't get their nuts twisted.

    Bringing it back on topic to the UK, we should be the better country and scrap them. It's not exactly going to invite other countries to attack us.
    • 0 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.


    As long as Scotland is still a part of the United Kingdom the people there are perfectly entitled to have opinions on things affecting the UK, regardless of political persuasion.

    As for nukes- if we had a tried and tested missile shield that would stop incoming nukes then yes I would rather our nuclear weapon funding went into that instead. Maybe that would be more achievable if we were to join up with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If by alternative you mean an even more powerful weapon. Mutually assured destruction saves lives.


    (Original post by RyanT)
    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.
    Against who and why?
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What I can never work out is how these people that go to places like Switzerland for the supposed lower taxes handle the non nuclear defence issue.

    Aren't they worried that the Iranians or North Koreans will nuke them and the last laugh will be on those who are paying higher taxes in the UK, who have enjoyed the protection of our nuclear deterrent.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    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.
    This.

    Also no other countries are removing their nuclear deterrents, why should we leave ourselves open to attack. :rolleyes:

    <3 x
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    What I can never work out is how these people that go to places like Switzerland for the supposed lower taxes handle the non nuclear defence issue.

    Aren't they worried that the Iranians or North Koreans will nuke them and the last laugh will be on those who are paying higher taxes in the UK, who have enjoyed the protection of our nuclear deterrent.


    Why on earth would anyone want to nuke Switzerland? In fact, as it stands, why would anyone want to nuke anyone? Why do you mention North Korea and Iran?

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?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  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 completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 25, 2012
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.