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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    What you're basically saying is 'What if the current world order is turned entirely on it's head'. Advocating something on that basis is ridiculous. We might as well say 'Let's build a network of defences on the South Coast in case we ever leave the EU and declare war on them'*

    *= I am aware that most of your party would like this to happen, but that just backs up my point about it being ridiculous.
    World orders can change look at the end of the Cold War, the Yalta conference in 1945, the ToV in 1919, it would be naive to disarm and hand ourselves over to the benevolence of America when we dont know the international situation of 20, 50 or 100 years time.

    and as for your second comment, Im a Europhile so I dont know how you reached that conclusion about my party.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    They're not huge assumptions. For one, they're assumptions that most European states bar us and the French work on.

    For two, I think it's pretty reasonable to state that any attack on us is likely to be an attack on NATO/the west in general, which as you state, will likely involve the US first, and us only if they have any capability left.

    What's more, MAD is an outdated concept that's really only going to come into play in case of a Nuclear War with Russia - which is extremely unlikely.

    No other EU country spent the billions we (and the French) did developing, testing and building nuclear weapons.

    It is entirely dishonourable to have the technology, yet say we don't need to fork out for it because America does. One, it gives America yet another card to play in diplomatic negotiations with us, and two - we are shown not to take our duties within NATO seriously.

    It's hypocritical to argue that you're against Nuclear weapons and that we don't need Nuclear weapons because America has them.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    It's hypocritical to argue that you're against Nuclear weapons and that we don't need Nuclear weapons because America has them.
    I'm not. I'm against Nuclear Weapons in principle, because I think we should set an example to the world by getting rid of them and declaring ourselves a Nuclear Free Zone, like South Africa or Germany have (yes, I know Germany never had any, but still - NFZ)...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    I'm not. I'm against Nuclear Weapons in principle, because I think we should set an example to the world by getting rid of them and declaring ourselves a Nuclear Free Zone, like South Africa or Germany have (yes, I know Germany never had any, but still - NFZ)...

    So we should declare ourselves a nuclear free zone, but acknowledge that a Nuclear deterrent works and rely on the USA to provide one?

    Whilst I can accept that it would be cost effective, personally I couldn't live with the hypocrisy of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    but being a 'big world power' is important to the benefit of our people, it enables us to comprehensively defend ourselves if we are ever attacked. You may cite the last 50 years as an era of European peace however due to the structure of the international system, another total war is not out of the question.
    Well Germany doesn't have its own nuclear weapons and spends far less on defence than us, but they're not worried.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotsofsnails)
    Well Germany doesn't have its own nuclear weapons and spends far less on defence than us, but they're not worried.
    I think us and Germany are quite different in terms of defence. Germany have never had nuclear weapons and they have no desire to gain them furthermore the attitude toward the military is different in Germany simply due to the events of the 20th century. Britain is a different kettle of fish, there is a national desire to remain 'a great power' and to maintain our position on the SC, many, including myself would see maintaining nuclear capability as the most effective means.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    I think us and Germany are quite different in terms of defence. Germany have never had nuclear weapons and they have no desire to gain them furthermore the attitude toward the military is different in Germany simply due to the events of the 20th century. Britain is a different kettle of fish, there is a national desire to remain 'a great power' and to maintain our position on the SC, many, including myself would see maintaining nuclear capability as the most effective means.
    So you advocate Britain remaining a nuclear power because of some outdated idea that we are an important global player?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Owl1867)
    So you advocate Britain remaining a nuclear power because of some outdated idea that we are an important global player?

    The Conservative party (unlike some, evidently) has pride in Great Britain and believes we are an important global player.
    However if you'd care to read all of Dave's posts on this matter, you'd realise that being an important global player is not the only reason why he is advocating Great Britain remains a nuclear power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    The Conservative party (unlike some, evidently) has pride in Great Britain and believes we are an important global player.
    However if you'd care to read all of Dave's posts on this matter, you'd realise that being an important global player is not the only reason why he is advocating Great Britain remains a nuclear power.
    I think it is possible to have pride with Great Britain whilst accept that we are not as important in global politics as we have been in the past. To suggest we are comparable militarily with nations such as the USA and Russia (as it appeared was being implied) is to me ludicrous.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Owl1867)
    I think it is possible to have pride with Great Britain whilst accept that we are not as important in global politics as we have been in the past. To suggest we are comparable militarily with nations such as the USA and Russia (as it appeared was being implied) is to me ludicrous.

    I don't think being an important global power and being comparable militarily with Russia and the USA go hand in hand. Militarily our technology is close to the USA and ahead of Russia. Our training and experience is second to none. The thing setting us apart mainly is scale.
    But back to the point - you've changed your viewpoint ever so slightly literally, but effectively a lot.
    "some outdated idea that we are an important global player"
    and
    "accept that we are not as important in global politics as we have been in the past."
    Spot the difference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nice to see Dave's apparent classical liberal values fly out the window when it comes to international relations =/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    I think us and Germany are quite different in terms of defence. Germany have never had nuclear weapons and they have no desire to gain them furthermore the attitude toward the military is different in Germany simply due to the events of the 20th century. Britain is a different kettle of fish, there is a national desire to remain 'a great power' and to maintain our position on the SC, many, including myself would see maintaining nuclear capability as the most effective means.
    Well personally I don't think it's worth it. We spend 2.4% of our GDP on defence, whereas Japan spends 0.8% and Germany 1.5%. The money we could save and the benefits that money could have for ordinary people in this country are enormous. I think it's much more sensible to spend money in ways that will directly benefit our people than waste it so we can satisfy some vain concept of how important we are in the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Owl1867)
    So you advocate Britain remaining a nuclear power because of some outdated idea that we are an important global player?
    Not solely because of that, nuclear weapons has a key strategic role in international security (of which I have outlined earlier in this thread). Furthermore I would deny that the this idea is 'outdated', I think it has always been the role of states whether that be in 1648 or in 2009 to gain influence on the international stage, a nuclear capability ensures British influence is assured not only on the UN Security Council but in the world generally.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    The Conservative party (unlike some, evidently) has pride in Great Britain and believes we are an important global player.
    :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Nice to see Dave's apparent classical liberal values fly out the window when it comes to international relations =/
    I dont understand how you can apply domestic political theory to IR? :confused:

    Im of the realist school of thought in terms of IR. If you are aware, there are 3 main schools of thought Realists, Liberals, Social Constructivism. I personally dont believe that Liberalism in term of IR can be equated to Liberalism in political theory, classical Liberal political theory centres on the roles of individuals, Liberal theory in IR centres on states working together to promote their own interests, thats contradictory isnt it?

    My Classically Liberal domestic views are actually quite similar to the Realist school of thought, people should be treated as individuals at the domestic levels and I believe states act individually on the international states.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    I don't think being an important global power and being comparable militarily with Russia and the USA go hand in hand. Militarily our technology is close to the USA and ahead of Russia. Our training and experience is second to none. The thing setting us apart mainly is scale.
    But back to the point - you've changed your viewpoint ever so slightly literally, but effectively a lot. and Spot the difference.
    Ok I accept my posts were somewhat different in meaning. I'll clarify I think we were once an important world player. I no longer believe this to be the case. Sure we are more important than some but really compared to the USA, Russia, China or even the EU as a whole we are pretty powerless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotsofsnails)
    Well personally I don't think it's worth it. We spend 2.4% of our GDP on defence, whereas Japan spends 0.8% and Germany 1.5%. The money we could save and the benefits that money could have for ordinary people in this country are enormous. I think it's much more sensible to spend money in ways that will directly benefit our people than waste it so we can satisfy some vain concept of how important we are in the world.
    Firstly, we dont spend all 2.4% of our GDP on nuclear missles, in fact the maintanance of the Trident system is relatively cheap, it is only the renewal or creation that is expensive. Is the honourable Labour member seriously advocating that we reduce defence spending when our armed forces are already stretched thin in terms of financing?

    There is a definate link between maintaining the Trident system and benefitting our people. Nuclear Capability ---> maintaining prestige ---> prevent any country from exploiting our economic or territorial interests ---> ensuring the ordinary Brits safety and prosperity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    There is a definate link between maintaining the Trident system and benefitting our people. Nuclear Capability ---> maintaining prestige ---> prevent any country from exploiting our economic or territorial interests ---> ensuring the ordinary Brits safety and prosperity.
    Do you think comparable non-nuclear countries like Germany or Italy have their economic or territorial interests particularly abused?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    Firstly, we dont spend all 2.4% of our GDP on nuclear missles, in fact the maintanance of the Trident system is relatively cheap, it is only the renewal or creation that is expensive. Is the honourable Labour member seriously advocating that we reduce defence spending when our armed forces are already stretched thin in terms of financing?
    Yes. One of the things I hate most about New Labour is how militaristic they are. I'd like a much smaller military, and for all our troops to be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    (Original post by davireland)
    There is a definate link between maintaining the Trident system and benefitting our people. Nuclear Capability ---> maintaining prestige ---> prevent any country from exploiting our economic or territorial interests ---> ensuring the ordinary Brits safety and prosperity.
    Realistically, how does not having nuclear weapons allow other countries to exploit our economic and territorial interests? Germany and Japan have bigger economies and populations than us and they get along fine without them, they're not exploited in such ways.

    (Original post by davireland)
    I dont understand how you can apply domestic political theory to IR? :confused:

    Im of the realist school of thought in terms of IR. If you are aware, there are 3 main schools of thought Realists, Liberals, Social Constructivism. I personally dont believe that Liberalism in term of IR can be equated to Liberalism in political theory, classical Liberal political theory centres on the roles of individuals, Liberal theory in IR centres on states working together to promote their own interests, thats contradictory isnt it?

    My Classically Liberal domestic views are actually quite similar to the Realist school of thought, people should be treated as individuals at the domestic levels and I believe states act individually on the international states.
    So what's so bad about states working together to advance their collective interests?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Do you think comparable non-nuclear countries like Germany or Italy have their economic or territorial interests particularly abused?
    The thing is with these states they've never been nuclear powers and they are more integrated into the European Union. I think if the UK lost Trident it would lose alot of face in the international community and that percieved weakness could be harmful to UK interests.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: December 17, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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