Nuclear weapons allowed?

Question

Why is Blair thinking of letting the UK have Nuclear weapons when he tries to stop Iran and Korea from having them?
Surely there are better ways of protecting our nation.

Answer 1

Next time when asking a question perhaps try reading past the headline of news article and you will know exactly why.

Answer 2

Because you can't un-invent nuclear weapons. They will always exist in this world. If we didn't have nuclear weapons, then we would be open season for nuclear nations. We need to own nukes as a deterrent. That's all. Iran and Korea don't sign the Nuclear Treaty and therefore cannot be trusted to have their own nukes. Their intentions are suspect, so therefore the UN decided to oppose them on this subject. It wasn't solely Britain's decision, it was the UN.

Besides, what makes you think that if we decide to lay down arms, every other Nation will follow suit? The Nations that want us dead will see this as an excuse to attack us!

They are still a last resort weapon. We do defend our Nation in many other ways, but I certainly feel safer in the knowledge that our forces have nuclear missiles defending me. It puts other nuclear nations off attacking us. I for one say we keep our nukes.

Answer 3

We already have nuclear weapons - we've had them for years. So have America, Russia and many other countries. Blair and Bush what to stop countries like Iran and Korea from having them because he thinks that they might use them to attack us. And yes, the argument is unfair and unjust. I hate the thought of nuclear weapons, scares me alot.

Answer 4

I think you should read up on Iran & North Korea - as much as I dont like Mr Blair ... Both these countries have unstable maniacs in power.. who have threatened to use these weapons on other nations ..

Answer 5

World powers like the UK fear that the country is always at risk due to the influence their foreign policy has on other countries (usually 3rd world). As a result, the fear that such countries could attack a country like the UK in an attempt to gain their "independence over their policies and resources" forces goverments to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Is it allowed? Is it fair? probably not, but what is the other alternative?

Answer 6

Israel has in no way threatened to apply their nuclear weapons while Iran desires to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. there's a city in Israel which won 6500 rocket assaults by the Palestinians. only one city!! It replaced into on 60 minutes or a variety of information courses; the Israeli confirmed the interviewer the rockets which Israel had stockpiled. Palestine has been firing rockets into Israel for years and Israel is ultimately astounding returned. Israel forcibly got rid of their Israeli voters from Gaza. And the Palestinians did no longer something yet return the choose with rockets! the undeniable fact that Israel has nuclear weapons isn't the reason at the back of the turmoil in the midsection East.

Answer 7

Britain uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent whereas the fear is that Iran and Korea will use them for destruction

Answer 8

Ummmm....in case you hadn't noticed, mate, the UK has had nuclear weapons since just after WWII (if you know what that is). So Blair isn't "thinking of letting the UK have" nuclear weapons, we've had them for a long time. If we hadn't we'd all be speaking a different language by now and your SHITE english schools might actually teach you something useful.

Answer 9

We already have Nuclear weapons but,what blair wants to do is to upgrade to more modern missiles and,its about time as most of them are outdated.
We need something as a deterrent to all those countries who may want to scare us.

Answer 10

I believe having no nukes could only be a good thing for Britain- it would improve our moral stance no end... as long as we have nukes other countries will feel the need for their own armaments. I mean, I thought we were part of a non-proliferation treaty, there's no way we should be thinking about trident replacement... I mean, the money could be a lot better spent on things that could directly aid the people. Precisely who do we want to nuke, anyhow? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear attrition and MAD isn't supposed to be that meaningful anymore...

Answer 11

This is all down to the UN Nuclear Arms non-proliferation treaty. We've had nuclear weapons since 1949. Those who've got them are supposed to stop anyone else having them.