Would you be willing to live in a country that didn't have nuclear weapons

Watch
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I see Jeremy Corbyn wants to give up our nuclear deterrent and leave us defenceless in an uncertain world :afraid:

Would you be willing to live in a country like Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden that does not have nuclear weapons when we do not know what is going to happen with North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Islamic State?

Will those nuclear-free countries even exist in 20 or 30 years time or will they have been bombed in to destruction by attacking powers who can do so safely without risk of retribution?

If Britain gave up it's nuclear deterrent would you stay here or would you emigrate somewhere that had nuclear weapons to feel safer (eg Israel, Pakistan, India).
0
reply
Interzone Agent
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I live in a country without nuclear weapons now (Spain). Makes no difference to my feelings of security.

Posted from TSR Mobile
11
reply
Jeniecechantelle
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
It would make me feel more safer. Possessing nuclear weapons just makes us look like more of a threat, but that's just my opinion..
3
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
I'd feel less safe, but the thing about countries without nukes is that they are usually neutral regarding world foreign policy anyway seeing as they never become involved and therefore will never become targets/threats
1
reply
alexxandra
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Yes
0
reply
Scott.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
I'd feel less safe. At anytime Russia would be ab;e to attack us, and we wouldn't be able to respond. With Nukes they'd fear mutual destruction.

If anything, we need more Nukes. MOAR.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
I'd feel less safe, but the thing about countries without nukes is that they are usually neutral regarding world foreign policy anyway seeing as they never become involved and therefore will never become targets/threats
Surely that's a naive way to view it, otherwise can't we just say we are neutral like Switzerland so when Islamic State get nuclear weapons they will say oh its OK lets leave the UK alone because they are neutral and we will just nuke the others.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Surely that's a naive way to view it, otherwise can't we just say we are neutral like Switzerland so when Islamic State get nuclear weapons they will say oh its OK lets leave the UK alone because they are neutral and we will just nuke the others.
yeah but neutrality isn't always going to make hostile forces ignore your presence - in WWI, germany invaded switzerland, for example
1
reply
CatnipGlows
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
I would be much happier living in a country that did not possess any nuclear weapons. No good can ever come from possessing such weapons.
1
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
yeah but neutrality isn't always going to make hostile forces ignore your presence - in WWI, germany invaded switzerland, for example
Ireland was nuetral in WW2, and even though that nuetrality was geared more towards the UK, if the UK had lost to Germany, they would have invaded Ireland
0
reply
zyzzyspirit
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Would you be willing to live in a country like Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden that does not have nuclear weapons when we do not know what is going to happen with North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Islamic State?

Will those nuclear-free countries even exist in 20 or 30 years time or will they have been bombed in to destruction by attacking powers who can do so safely without risk of retribution?
You're forgetting said countries are part of NATO and thus guaranteed security by the US.

If a NATO member state would be attacked the aggressor would be facing the US military. No other way around it.

I understand your logic considering the situation in Ukraine (which after handing over its nuclear arms, faced a Russian invasion), but it was never a NATO member and until recent had little intention to join the ranks.
1
reply
Sabertooth
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
I think it's wrong of the UK to give up all their nukes and make major cut-backs to the military with the intention that the US will "protect" the UK were it necessary. Not to mention, I can't imagine any US president wanting to meet this Corbyn guy.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
I see Jeremy Corbyn wants to give up our nuclear deterrent and leave us defenceless in an uncertain world :afraid:

Would you be willing to live in a country like Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden that does not have nuclear weapons when we do not know what is going to happen with North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Islamic State?

Will those nuclear-free countries even exist in 20 or 30 years time or will they have been bombed in to destruction by attacking powers who can do so safely without risk of retribution?

If Britain gave up it's nuclear deterrent would you stay here or would you emigrate somewhere that had nuclear weapons to feel safer (eg Israel, Pakistan, India).
All countries that are part of larger communities with countries possessing nuclear weapons that would come to their aid.

I also fail to see your point. Are you suggesting that nuclear weapons are redundant because they might not affect people's emigration choices?
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Sabertooth)
I think it's wrong of the UK to give up all their nukes and make major cut-backs to the military with the intention that the US will "protect" the UK were it necessary. Not to mention, I can't imagine any US president wanting to meet this Corbyn guy.
Doesn't he want to leave NATO anyway?
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
I would much rather live in a country that doesn't waste billions on insane weapons that make the world a much more dangerous place. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the greater the risk of something going wrong and nuclear war being initiated. Any potential risk of us becoming a target by disarming is significantly lower than the background risk of nuclear war that exists by countries being armed in the first place. Nuclear disarmament is never going to happen if people adamantly refuse to take any steps forward.

The people here who think that China/Russia/Country-of-choice is going to nuke us into oblivion the moment we disarm are just talking nonsense. Nuclear war is negative-sum-game, nobody benefits from it. The world is too interconnected and too politically, socially and economically interdependent for nuclear war to be of any benefit to anybody. Nuclear weapons are just a disgusting political (and economic, for the various industries that benefit from them) bargaining tool that puts the entire planet at risk in case someone makes a mistake and initiates a global conflict. I don't want that.
4
reply
driftawaay
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Plagioclase)
I would much rather live in a country that doesn't waste billions on insane weapons that make the world a much more dangerous place. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the greater the risk of something going wrong and nuclear war being initiated. Any potential risk of us becoming a target by disarming is significantly lower than the background risk of nuclear war that exists by countries being armed in the first place. Nuclear disarmament is never going to happen if people adamantly refuse to take any steps forward.
+1

The UK should be an example to the world, not one of the bullies toting nuclear weapons. It's disgusting.
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
It depends on the country. I'm confident I'd feel safer in Norway than say North Korea (which has the bomb allegedly).

However I think it's good for the UK to have nukes, for national interests and for global peace.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Sabertooth)
I think it's wrong of the UK to give up all their nukes and make major cut-backs to the military with the intention that the US will "protect" the UK were it necessary. Not to mention, I can't imagine any US president wanting to meet this Corbyn guy.
Him and Bernie Sanders could be right pals. That's the dream team right there :lol:

In answer to OP's question I lived in a country that voluntary dismantled it's nuclear weapons and felt more concerned about the threat of crime than a foreign invasion. However I still believe that the UK should retain it's nuclear weapons. If we dismantled them it would leave us in a precarious situation. I already have reservations over America's commitment to European security, with isolationism increasingly becoming a powerful force in domestic politics over the pond. In the event of a first strike against us, however unlikely at present, we can not be entirely confident that America would respond. And being reliant on the French alone as the only EU nuclear capable state puts us and Europe collectively in a weaker position and gives the French too much power. Plus no permanent member of the UNSC is a non-nuclear state, and if Britain gave up it's nuclear capability it could threaten our position in the UNSC, and I'd rather we secured British interests, and our ability to be a force for good in the world, by retaining our permanent seat in the UNSC.

Nuclear disarmament should be pursued, but at an international level with all countries working together and creating agreements and treaties to work towards it, rather than by unilateral action on behalf of the UK government to end our nuclear capability.
1
reply
Princeaul3353
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
I see Jeremy Corbyn wants to give up our nuclear deterrent and leave us defenceless in an uncertain world :afraid:

Would you be willing to live in a country like Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden that does not have nuclear weapons when we do not know what is going to happen with North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Islamic State?

Will those nuclear-free countries even exist in 20 or 30 years time or will they have been bombed in to destruction by attacking powers who can do so safely without risk of retribution?

If Britain gave up it's nuclear deterrent would you stay here or would you emigrate somewhere that had nuclear weapons to feel safer (eg Israel, Pakistan, India).
Nuclear bombs are impractical weapons.

Every major nation wants at least one, but they can't realistically use it because nobody really wants to destroy the world. People would much rather control the world. And that’s what the ‘Robot Army’ concept and drones allows for.

But it takes a lot more drones to control the world than it takes nuclear weapons to destroy the world—thus the expense.

Also the cost of keeping up with the state-of-the-art technology is very expensive.

The bomb works by cutting an atom in half, which in turn cuts other atoms in half and so on. The next thing you know a whole city is gone with fires everywhere and winds blowing clouds of poison over other cities and countries.

If enough bombs go off at once, it could become winter all over the world – the nuclear winter.

You can make an nuclear bomb only out of certain elements, like plutonium, and only if you have the right amount. It does not work with ordinary elements, like iron or copper. Making or getting the plutonium is the hard part.

Ask the Doc in Back to the Future (lol)
0
reply
username1915455
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Doesn't he want to leave NATO anyway?
Yes, he does.

Overall nuclear weapons would tend to make a country much more of a target if a full-blown nuclear war broke out, and also the majority of countries without weapons would be protected by the who are, particularly America if Russia used its weapons.

If the UK got rid of its weapons it would still be a target because of its allegiance to America, and perhaps a sense of distrust that we haven't actually removed them. Also Britain has a fairly strong conventional military, making it a target but also keeping some deterrent. Also, nuclear weapons help to maintain our place on the global stage, independent of America and the French. On the other hand very few people would be crazy enough to attack any country, let alone Britain without nuclear weapons, and most/all would target America first, probably until destroyed.

Overall I think it would make the UK less safe, but only in the very long term and only with a large shift of global politics.

(Original post by Swanbow)

Nuclear disarmament should be pursued, but at an international level with all countries working together and creating agreements and treaties to work towards it, rather than by unilateral action on behalf of the UK government to end our nuclear capability.
I agree, although the only government who really want this are the Japanese.
0
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

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (43)
5.8%
Uncertainty around my education (84)
11.34%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (79)
10.66%
Lack of purpose or motivation (94)
12.69%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (39)
5.26%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (42)
5.67%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (80)
10.8%
Financial worries (50)
6.75%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (32)
4.32%
Exposure to negative news/social media (46)
6.21%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (24)
3.24%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (71)
9.58%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (57)
7.69%

Watched Threads

View All