Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged Britain would keep its nuclear arsenal well into the 21st century on Monday, saying it would be unwise and dangerous for it to give up its deterrent unilaterally.
2006-12-04 04:57:53 · 24 answers · asked by Rainman 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No. What's the point?! Nuclear is not deterring anyone at the moment from having a pop at us. And the majority of the western world aren't worried about being attacked just because they don't have them.
Blair has a cheek - condemning Iran for wanting them because their nutter of a leader is a threat to world peace.
All the while, our 'Saint Tony' is doing his bit santioning the killing of half a million Iraqis, flattening Afghanistan, impotently standing by as Israel demolish a large part of the Lebanon.
Yeh, actually, by the time this war-monger has finished, we might need them.
2006-12-04 05:18:13 · answer #1 · answered by Micah H 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes anyone who thinks we should get rid of them is either totally naive, a political dinasour or an imbecile! Unilateralism it total tosh, and was proved so during the cold war. How on earth can unilateralists predict what threats and dangers the UK will face in the next 25 to 50 years? China, Russia, Iran, Al Quaeda, an Arab State, North Korea?? Who knows? Want to take the risk? A deterrent is just that, meant to deter anyone who may think to strike at us with nuclear weapons. Its the only surefire way to stop them. Also nations that allowed terrorists to strike from their territory would themselves be targets, so the deterrent would make them think very hard before allowing al quaeda etc to try that one! We may also lose our seat on the UN Security Council as a result(all members are nuclear), and would lose a lot of political influence too. By the way, im half iraqi, Mica's comments on iraq are total crap!
2006-12-05 13:03:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No country, none, not even America should retain nuclear weapons. America is by far the most powerful military in the world.. but retaining then ripping up treaties, threatening small countries, etc. Is causing the proliferation of nukes. America and others could very easily track any movement of any materials. America would be capable easily of punishing anyone trying to attempt acquisition of any materials it wanted after a full de arming of all countries.
2006-12-04 13:07:50 · answer #3 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For a small country like Britain , it should not have possessed any nuclear weapons as it simply has not got land to launch any nuclear test.
2006-12-05 08:53:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im no political expert. but, No, if others cant have them, then why should Britain. Britain is just as dangerous as any other country. Thats in theory tho, in todays political climate, Britain wont give them up and have no intention to ever get rid of its nuclear arsenal. We can have it but others cant. Bully tactics
2006-12-04 13:13:55 · answer #5 · answered by theoriginalsource 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Keep Them--- without any Doubt -- Consider what the Lunatics in Iran - Iraq - Syria would be tempted to do to us if we were without Nuclear Weapons as a Defence ???
2006-12-06 10:36:30 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is utterly pointless, there is no cold war now and having nuclear weapons makes us more prone to be a target for terrorist attacks on our nuclear bases.
Nuclear war is wanted by our naval and arms industries who will make millions/billions from the deal. We have a huge research industry and services also who look to this kind of contract, but it is morally and strategically obscene.
2006-12-04 17:19:43 · answer #7 · answered by kenjinuk 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've never understood why we got nuclear weapons in the first place, I thought they were indestructable? I guess all countries have them, like cars, you got to have a nice shiny car with neighbours like Bush and that French guy.
2006-12-04 13:06:05 · answer #8 · answered by floppity 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes...cause all the weapons.like the ones that used to belong to the USSR would be sold to all the nutters of the world with the right price.
Can you imagine the real IRA or al Queda with nukes?
2006-12-04 13:01:23 · answer #9 · answered by km 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With North Korea entering the nuclear age, it's only common sense that we do. We can't rely on the USA to protect us if it comes to that. More to the point we SHOULDN'T rely on them.
By all means scale them back; we currently have enough firepower to scorch thousands of miles of earth and irradiate it for a long time.
We have set an example by cutting back on our salvo by more than any other country, and i would welcome the example to be followed, but i'm just not sure it's going to happen.
I say we keep them.
2006-12-04 13:04:30 · answer #10 · answered by Adam S 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋