Nuclear and Chemical Weaponry

How has developing warfare shaped the 21st century? And, what are your views on the UK having Nuclear and Chemical weapons?

Do we even have chemical weapons?

Do we even have chemical weapons?

Yes

On a programme I watched a while ago, Porton Down were creating chemical substance that could kill people in an instant. Then there's mustard gas and chlorine gas that been around since the Great War.

Research into chemical agents and biological pathogens is an absolute necessity into understanding their effects on humans, livestock and the environment. Only then can effective treatments and eradication procedures be devised to protect populations and attempt to mitigate loss of life if they are used. Hence Porton Down experts are central to dealing with the Novichok incidents in Salisbury and surrounding areas.

It is a critical part of the UN treaties on the control of the weapons and the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Researching is not the same as manufacturing and stockpiling weapons for use in war.

Still too early to say on nukes. North Korea is really the only state to have acquired nuclear capacity within the 21st Century. If proliferation continues (as, unfortunately, seems likely in the next few decades unless we really try to get a handle on it), then things might really start to change. If Iran, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Turkey too, acquire some small stockpiles of low-yield weapons, then I'd say chances of a minor (in nuclear terms) regional nuclear war in the Middle East rise significantly.

That's a really helpful answer thank you! What would you say to the manufacture of nuclear weapons then, if the chemical research is beneficial in fighting against those who are using chemicals as weapons, what's your view on the manufacturing of nuclear weapons?

For the major powers, though, nuclear weapons have actually somewhat declined in value since the turn of the century. It's only really Russia which continues to rely on them as a primary aspect of its security posture - the US, China and even the EU are considerably more confident in their conventional capacities, leaving nuclear as a somewhat secondary threat.

That's a really helpful answer thank you! What would you say to the manufacture of nuclear weapons then, if the chemical research is beneficial in fighting against those who are using chemicals as weapons, what's your view on the manufacturing of nuclear weapons?

Non-proliferation organisations must have the ability to police with hard diplomacy - talk softly and carry a big stick in the form of global sanctions from the UN. trouble is the UN is toothless because each of the big five nuclear states have a veto on any agreements - and use it to scupper anything that may erode their global or regional interests.

Non nuclear weapon states should be actively deterred from ever developing and manufacturing them.

All of this is easier said than done as recent events in North Korea and Iran have shown, with miscreant nations clandestine development becoming key strategic aims to establish regional power and dictate terms to others.

They have dangerously become a powerful diplomatic bargaining tool for smaller states to hold the rest of the world to ransom.

I'm not worried about the original nuclear states (before the global non-proliferation treaties came into existence) of the U.S., Russia, China, France or the U.K. ever actually using them as a first strike weapon (WWII is not part of the evaluation since the U.S. has not used any in anger for the last 73 years. There is no reason to suggest they will do so anytime soon regardless of the bellicose rhetoric of others.)

Prove it.

It's a known fact that Britain has nuclear weapons . What do you mean prove it?