The Green Party and nuclear weapons?

Watch
Shannonleah
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I don't understand the Green stance on nukes.

How can they justify trying to get rid of them when other countries have them? It's unrealistic to say they'd push for disarmament- how are they going to get other countries to get rid of their nukes? If we don't have nukes, surely we're an easy target as we cannot use MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrent for nuclear war?
0
reply
James Milibanter
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I disagree sorry.
If Nukes are used the whole world goes *BANG* and we all die. They can only be a necessity if there was a chance that we'd use them, since using them would mean the destruction of the world they wont be used. The amount that's spent on trident is a real lot, especially considering that they wont ever be used. We can't be an easy target, the USA is an ally and there is absolutely no chance that they'd give up their Nukes, long story short, we really don't need them.
3
reply
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Their policy on nuclear power is way more problematic and inconsistent with their goals. They are consistent pacifists so of course they hate nuclear weapons.
1
reply
James Milibanter
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Their policy on nuclear power is way more problematic and inconsistent with their goals. They are consistent pacifists so of course they hate nuclear weapons.
It is worth noting that we share the same policy as the SNP who aren't pacifists. This is about a waste of money on something that wont ever be used.
1
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
If nuclear war ever comes, who ever launches nukes at us will in all probability also be launching them at France and the United States. In return they'll launch their nukes back at whoever fired it. Us having Trident is essentially our back up punch, which although understandable won't really change anything, we will all be dead .

But having nuclear weapons is one of the primary reasons why we still are, and will for the undetermined future, be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Defence cuts, getting rid of our nuclear weapons, and withdrawing from NATO, all of which the Green Party advocates, would leave us with about the same international influence as Austria. Personally I prefer Britain to have a bit of clout in the world, to maintain our national interests and help solve international issues. We get a lot of stick but the UK does a lot of good for the world. Without our 'big stick' I very much doubt our influence would be as great.
2
reply
Shannonleah
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I disagree sorry.
If Nukes are used the whole world goes *BANG* and we all die. They can only be a necessity if there was a chance that we'd use them, since using them would mean the destruction of the world they wont be used. The amount that's spent on trident is a real lot, especially considering that they wont ever be used. We can't be an easy target, the USA is an ally and there is absolutely no chance that they'd give up their Nukes, long story short, we really don't need them.
If we give up our nukes, we'd be entirely reliant on the US to help us if Russia decided to use nukes against us. We need to be self sufficient and not rely on America, as relying on them means we are strung along with them. Putin could use the fact that we don't have nukes and he does as a threat. Nobody is going to nuke right now because they know that we'd send nukes back- mutually assured destruction.
0
reply
James Milibanter
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by All_TheCyanide)
If we give up our nukes, we'd be entirely reliant on the US to help us if Russia decided to use nukes against us. We need to be self sufficient and not rely on America, as relying on them means we are strung along with them. Putin could use the fact that we don't have nukes and he does as a threat. Nobody is going to nuke right now because they know that we'd send nukes back- mutually assured destruction.
Why on earth would Russia nuke us? It wouldn't happen, not in a million years, the idea of a nuclear deterrent is completely flawed. Can you ever imagine having a prime minister of ours pressing that red button? what about David Cameron pressing a button that would kill us all? These are horrible weapons of mass destruction and we need to dispose of them, it's one thing to have conventional conflict where no civilians are injured but it's another to kill them all. Trident costs £8 billion a year to renew, I'll say it again, that's an awful lot of money to spend on something that are 1) illegal and 2) something we'll never ever use.
3
reply
samba
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by All_TheCyanide)
I don't understand the Green stance on nukes.

How can they justify trying to get rid of them when other countries have them? It's unrealistic to say they'd push for disarmament- how are they going to get other countries to get rid of their nukes? If we don't have nukes, surely we're an easy target as we cannot use MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrent for nuclear war?
I'm far from a Green supporter, but if nukes are used against us, it won't be a symmetrical opponent. If it is, the world is screwed anyway. Russia France the US and Israel are the only countries with the capability to hit us. (and possibly china). Nobody in their right mind would nuke us.


(Original post by All_TheCyanide)
If we give up our nukes, we'd be entirely reliant on the US to help us if Russia decided to use nukes against us. We need to be self sufficient and not rely on America, as relying on them means we are strung along with them. Putin could use the fact that we don't have nukes and he does as a threat. Nobody is going to nuke right now because they know that we'd send nukes back- mutually assured destruction.
Assuming somehow that France got nuked at the same time as us, we'd still have Chinese and Israeli seabourne nukes available even if the US was somehow incapacitated.

MAD is so cold war. Even Reagan and Gorby wanted rid of them all (and didn't care whether the UK got rid of theirs)
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by All_TheCyanide)
I don't understand the Green stance on nukes.

How can they justify trying to get rid of them when other countries have them? It's unrealistic to say they'd push for disarmament- how are they going to get other countries to get rid of their nukes? If we don't have nukes, surely we're an easy target as we cannot use MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrent for nuclear war?
Who would nuke just the UK and what would their reasoning be behind it ?
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
The prospect of a world where tyrannies have nukes and democracies don't, is one which terrifies me.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I disagree sorry.
If Nukes are used the whole world goes *BANG* and we all die. They can only be a necessity if there was a chance that we'd use them, since using them would mean the destruction of the world they wont be used. The amount that's spent on trident is a real lot, especially considering that they wont ever be used. We can't be an easy target, the USA is an ally and there is absolutely no chance that they'd give up their Nukes, long story short, we really don't need them.
There's been two nukes fired in aggression and over 2500 nuckear war heads detonated since then.

I'm still here.

Try studying the military history of the Cold War. Sadly, the threat of te use of nuclear weapons maintained te peace in Europe.

Worth a read for you.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Cold-War.../dp/0312241836
2
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Lionheart96)
Who would nuke just the UK and what would their reasoning be behind it ?
That's not the point of the deterent. It's not to defend a named state. It's to defend against a potential scenario.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Swanbow)
If nuclear war ever comes, who ever launches nukes at us will in all probability also be launching them at France and the United States. In return they'll launch their nukes back at whoever fired it. Us having Trident is essentially our back up punch, which although understandable won't really change anything, we will all be dead .
Right now that's true, but it would be foolish to assume that it will always be so.

Despite our NATO obligations, we've seen from polls that most people in Britain and America would oppose supporting Estonia, Latvia and Turkey if they are ever attacked by Russia. As isolationist tendencies continue to increase, who is to say that one day Americans won't oppose supporting us if we are ever attacked? They could feel, and with some justification, that they shouldn't be aiding us militarily if we're not going to pull our weight or show any gratitude.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
The idea that all the nuclear states would be sending nuclear missile barrages at the UK the moment trident is decommissioned is absurd.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
The idea that all the nuclear states would be sending nuclear missile barrages at the UK the moment trident is decommissioned is absurd.
Agreed. They wouldn't need to fire them. They'd just need to threaten to.


do you happen to have a crystal ball? Can you tell me who will be a threat to the UK in the future?
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
That's not the point of the deterent. It's not to defend a named state. It's to defend against a potential scenario.
A potential scenario that will never occur
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Lionheart96)
A potential scenario that will never occur
A scenario that was a very real possibility from 45 to 89.

A scenario that appears to be returning
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
A scenario that was a very real possibility from 45 to 89.

A scenario that appears to be returning
A scenario that wouldn't need to return if nuclear weapons would have been abolished after the cold war.
I assume you think that it would be Russia nuking us?
Again why would russia be nuking us?
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Agreed. They wouldn't need to fire them. They'd just need to threaten to.


do you happen to have a crystal ball? Can you tell me who will be a threat to the UK in the future?
Yes, the likes of Germany, Canada and Japan are continually hounded by threats of nuclear war. I don't know how they manage.
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by felamaslen)
The prospect of a world where tyrannies have nukes and democracies don't, is one which terrifies me.
Considering the blast radius of the weapons we're discussing, the prospect of a world in which any government has nukes terrifies me. The supposed rightness or wrongness of the governments in question doesn't matter as much to me as disarming as many governments as possible as quickly as possible. Democracies and tyrannies come and go.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (170)
44.27%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (42)
10.94%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (31)
8.07%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (83)
21.61%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (36)
9.38%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (22)
5.73%

Watched Threads

View All