What is the point in Britain having nuclear weapons?

Question

I am a British citizen, and I'm not totally against nuclear weapons, but I just don't see any point in Britain having them. The amount we currently have is too small to make a difference in an all out nuclear war, and in a smaller conflict we can be sure that NATO would come to our aid. I just think the money needed to update the system could be better spent on hospitals and the only reason the government is considering developing a new system is political, not tactical.

Answer 1

Funnily enough, we would need to get American permission to use our launchers. So, they are doubly ineffective. I guess the govt thinks we need an independent deterrent to ensure our sovereignty. However, with the aforementioned problems, I have doubts they are truly independent.

I would agree with you on this one. The only problem being how to securely get rid of what we have now.

Answer 2

The British has a long history of militrary might even before the thought of the atomic bomb. They rule the seas and colonies. Having nuclear weapons is a prestige they hold so dearly, to tell the world it still has its miitrary might.

They consider themselves to be in a class above the rest of the world and join the nuclear super power club.

If I am correct, US, France, Britain, China and Russia have Nuclear arsenal. India, Pakistan, Isreal to name a few has only nuclear capabilities but no arsenal. If you notice, China and Russia are socialist states while the other 3 are capitalists. Perhaps they are only protecting their ideology. If fact, they are protecting you so you can live a life you have now.

What if other rogue nations acheive nuclear capability like Iran and North korea. They would target US first, and very likely Britain and France. The British arsenal is enough for MAD (Mutual assured destruction). You kick me I kick you. It does make a difference.

In the event of an all out nuclear war that wipe out all living things, whatever size your arsenal is, it doesn't really matter does it? Should Britain be the only country left in such an event, 1 bomb will make it a super power and the old age of miltrary dominence reigns again.(But I thnk the British has learnt a great lesson from Ghandi and freedom and respect all nationalities.)

Is NATO really necessary when WARSAW pact countries are virtually not interested anymore? The cold war is gone, finished. It is a good bet that Britain will not use the Nuclear bomb on European soil, so you could be right on smaller conflicts.

Money to update systems is important. Britain must stay ahead of rouge nations in terms of accurate deliveries and megatons and protection of the bombs in a nuclear fallout. If you divert money, lapse will occur and you are playing with the lives of many British Citizens. So spending on thse bombs is tactical. Politically, it is protecting your boundaries and at the same time pleasing the Americans as an ally.

If you want to go into details, look at a geographical map and see where your position is in relation to the rest of the world. Now, imagine a Korean bomb just struck Wales. How far are you then. Will the next bomb land in your street or would you rather have your bombs destroy theirs before they launch? By the way, isn't Britain surrounded by NATO states and that they should go to aid other bodering states first? (I could be wrong here)

Answer 3

They were initially given to the UK by the USA as whilst Soviet missiles could reach the USA, Americans ones couldn't reach the European part of the former USSR. We were hung out to dry by the USA.

It used to be true that the USA had to give the UK permission to fire their birds, this is no longer the case. However, all the satellite data (which may contain missile tracks en route to the UK) first goes via the USA organisation called NSA. This is because the UK hires time from the USA on their Sat's.

We need our own nukes now because of the USA.

The USA cannot be relied upon to defend the UK. It is solely interested in its own survival & frankly I can't blame them. In order to protect our intrests (economic/political/military/etc) we need nukes so that the rest of the world has to take us into account.

At the moment being an ally of the USA is a good reason to keep the nukes operational. The Yanks are likely to cause an escalation in conflict & they are largely safe from its possible effects, as they are geographically remote; we are not. We're right next door to where it could all kick off. You can't expect the USA to nuke Iran because they committed a major terror attack on the UK, but it is possible that in the first place Iran will be deterred from such a course of action i.e. attacking British interests as we have the ability to deal them a massive blow.

Answer 4

I certainly agree with you. I am not against nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons would kill all of us or cause innumerable other ills. I have taken a course in the effects of nuclear weapons and how to plot the cone of radiation, etc. I think that the world should learn how to develop what it needs for energy but get rid of the weapons that would effect the whole world if only a "small" war erupted.

Answer 5

I'm not sure of the current number of warheads in Britains arsenal... BUT just having ONE is a heck of a deterent to someone else causing you trouble.

The POINT of Britain having them dates to early NATO... Britain was therefore part of MADD... part of the deterence forces of NATO against the Warsaw Pact.

A new system ? I hadn't heard of that... I will research. Things DO need to be upgraded !!

And everything tactical or strategic has political ties.