Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

If we are to Disarm our nuclear weapons. It must be bilateral

Announcements Posted on
Would YOU be put off a uni with a high crime rate? First 50 to have their say get a £5 Amazon voucher! 27-10-2016
    • Thread Starter

    Hello folks.

    Either first time or one of my first few threads so forgive me if anything is amiss and feel free to let me know.

    I would like to talk about Nuclear Disarmament.

    Now for a long time i've been a supporter in keeping our nuclear weapons, and even to this day i believe in their function and ultimately their use should the need arise.

    However with the increase in support for disarmament i wanted to discuss the idea of a bilateral, instead of unilateral disarmament if it is going to take place.

    Here's why: A bilateral disarmament would represent a physical as well as a deeply symbolic change in the attitude of the UK and other countries towards their nuclear stockpiles.

    Now our stockpiles are comparatively small compared to other nations:

    You have the US and Russia in joint first place with over 5000 nuclear warheads each.

    Then there are the other countries:
    France: 300
    Israel: 60-400 Supposedly
    UK: 215
    China: 260
    Pakistan: 120
    And finally good ole' North Korea with about ten.

    So as you can see the UK's stockpile is small, but what if another nuclear disarmament treaty worked based on proportions of stockpiles instead of basic numbers?

    This could mean that a 5% disarmament in the UK would equate to about 11 warheads. Whilst in the US and Russia that would equate to 250 warheads each.

    We would be fools to believe that anywhere near our lifetime we're going to see outright nuclear disarmament, as unfortunately other countries, especially China and Russia are working on more-powerful delivery systems. However i feel that we do have a chance to reduce the worldwide nuclear stockpile overall.

    I would like to know what YOU folks think on this, is it feasible? Do you agree with it? Should trident stay or should it go as soon as possible?

    Best regards

    Agreed. As much as I'd like to get rid of nuclear weapons, I'm totally against unilateral disarmament (unless we create a foolproof way to stop a nuclear strike which unfortunately would be far harder & more expensive).
    Therefore I believe Trident should be replaced when the time comes. Although it'd be cheaper to have land based ICBMs, the risk is too great. Submarine based weapon systems are therefore still logical.

    Our creators wants us to use nuclear weapons in the next major conflict
Write a reply…


Submit reply


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. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 3, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

I want...
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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