I think we should always have independant nuclear weapons. The first duty of a government should be to protect the people, now and in the future against threats yet to materialise.
Its sad that we have to have them, as i dont like nuclear weapons, not in the slightest. But i'd rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them.
2006-12-07 10:51:50 · 8 answers · asked by the_sheik_of_sheet_lightning 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I agree, also I think we would NEVER be the first to use them, but we WOULD use them to retaliate!
2006-12-07 10:56:25 · answer #1 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do we know that some PM down the road won't be nuts enough to use them? In the Cuban missle crisis, nuclear war was prevented by a Soviet submarine commander who refused to obey his order to deploy a nuke. Can the world continue to rely on such luck? And couldn't that money be better spent on the war on poverty or a thousand other things? Another country or agent insane enough to deploy a nuclear weapon would have no respect for the deterrence aspect (massive civilian casualties). And can a nuclear attack on innocent civilians be considered appropriate as punishment for their leaders' crimes. The people responsible for the attack would already expect a response from Great Britain, and would surely be hidden away, and unharmed. "Mutually assured self destruction" is insane and immoral.
2006-12-07 19:01:41 · answer #2 · answered by brian w 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a world where people are not good, yes. Paper tigers or not, whatever extant, if superior technology exists, mutually assured destruction as a deterrent is assured once those things go critical mass. Too, development of Neutron Bombs in varied configurations as well. Less yield but highly effective. Your last comment makes sense. Since it's an academic question we covered all the bases. Personally, while I believe mankind isn't going to be around much longer, I have strong doubts he's going to go out like that.
2006-12-07 18:56:19 · answer #3 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no question about that, definitely Great Britain needs to keep the nuclear arsenal as a deterrent and as a self defense, but that is the competence of the Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Queen..âº
2006-12-07 23:04:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The recent happenings in the world in the past 5 years and the role great britain has and is playing in them, it better have one to effectively counter all the threats posed to it....
2006-12-08 05:39:22 · answer #5 · answered by pravkas 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
germany now days isolate thier nuclear weapons gradually and depend on other reasources ( permenant ) reasources for power
i think its right time to isolate that mass destruction from our life
2006-12-07 19:05:27 · answer #6 · answered by micho 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You may need them, you're right. Everyone hopes not, but there are crazy people in the world.
2006-12-07 18:55:24 · answer #7 · answered by jack w 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thank you, very well said
2006-12-07 21:10:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋