Why is the UK investing in Nuclear deterent?

Question

As a deterent it is supposed to deter first strike action by 'others'. If 'others' opted for first strike action firstly there would be no one to react and even if there was there would be no point. The Uk would be a nuclear wasteland, if you lived you wouldn't want to live here let alone invade the place after such an event. We are an island the first line of defence is the sea, which should be protected by a conventional naval fleet. As for the threat from within, nuclear deterent isn't going to solve that either. Sorry about the rant but it was the easiest way to get my point accross.

China are an emerging superpower and would not require nuclear capacity to put this island to the sword. But I can't really see why they would want any part of this island. As for Iran they have bigger fish to fry than nuking the uk.

Answer 1

Because they are smart and strong. They intend to stay that way.

Answer 2

I agree to a point.

However I think the main point with nuclear weapons is that it isn't a weapon. Every time one is used in the amosphere it causes radiation pollution that affects everyone.

Using the example someone mentioned. If China bombed Plymouth it would destroy Plymouth, pollute the entire south coast and London (prevailing winds are westerlies) then France, Germany and eventually ... China.

Yes, of course, it would diluted but the point is radiation does not go away. Let's say you get 50 roentgens today, well that's 50 off your allocation for your entire life. You don't recover from radiation poisoning.

Nuclear weapons are the stupidest "weapon" in existence.

The second point is that the concept of nuclear deterrent is a fallacy. If we have nuclear weapons that makes us a target for nuclear weapons.

Plus, there is the arrogance of "well, *we* can have nuclear weapons but *you* can't". The mere owning of nuclear weapons by arrogant nations causes their proliferation, it doesn't prevent it. Therefore by owning them. we (and the USA and France and the rest of them) are causing the world to become unsafe, not saving it.

And finally, think of the billions that get spent maintaining, and now building new, nuclear weapons -- just think what we could do if that money were spent on education and health but, instead, it's money wasted.

We'd be a far more powerful nation without them -- and we'd have the moral high ground.

There you go, I ranted right back at ya! :-)

Answer 3

I don't agree with you first point. The threat is that China, say, nukes a single city, for example Plymouth, and says to the country that if we don't surrender to them other cities will be nuked. Then Chinese troops will come in and might send millions of us to concentration camps if they have a Hitler, Pol pot, or similar evil person in charge. Which could happen. But we will willingly submit to this because being turned into a nuclear wasteland would be worse.
So it is the "middle ground" that is the issue here.
Since China and some other countries do have nukes, it is necessary for us I feel to provide deterrance just in case.
Also since we already have working designs for the bombs most of the work to produce them has been done, so a new round of boms will be cheaper to produce and maintain.

Answer 4

I agree with Neil M, Iran may soon have Nuclear weapons, and if they were going to punch me, I would want to punch them right back. Maybe the only reason for them not to punch me is because they know I am going to punch them back 10 times as hard. All this about 'think what we could spend that money' crap makes me laugh. It would not be given to the British, Tony and Gordon would give it to Europe, squander it on quangos, wasted. All of it wasted, I guarantee. This government has to have the worst record for competent spending ever.

Answer 5

It's just so if people want to finish off humanity, then the Brits want to do a good job and not leave a load of mutants.

Answer 6

UK and US, should stop mess up the WORLD ....