The british nuclear weapons plans

fly_agaric

Akrasia wrote:

that's in the simplest form of game theory. The more applicable model is one where the benevolent actor is nice by default, but if someone else betrays that trust, the benevolent actor responds negatively to that individual until that individual changes his/her behaviour towards the benevolent actor. In this scenario, a group of benevolent actors will do really well, and if there are a few selfish or sneaky players, they will be marginalised...The purpose of the Non Proliferation treaty was for this exact thing to happen. The aim of the NPT was for complete nuclear disarmament.

I understand. The question is, who's going to get the ball rolling by playing "nice" and putting away their nuclear weapons when the stakes in this game seem to be very high?
More realistically, where is the trust going to come from for all the nuclear armed countries to agree to a coordinated nuclear disarmament?

Akirasa wrote:

Stockpiled it probably.

They kept back samples secretly. Once smallpox had been eliminated in humans and the vaccine was no longer being given they manufactured biological weapons from their samples + loaded them onto ICBMs.

Akirasa wrote:

they probably also tried to build a doomsday device. do you think we should all have a doomsday device for self defence too?

I don't really understand the point of the Russian biological weapons program.
I really just brought it up to illustrate the kind of cynical world we live in rather than just to make a bad analogy with nuclear weapons.
It is obvious that once noone at all has nukes they become a more useful weapon for states than they are now.

Akirasa wrote:

The international community would have more than enough time to band together to prevent the nasty country from threatening them using conventional methods. But even if the nasty country did have a Nuke or two, if they ever used it, they would be assured a swift retaliation by the combined might of the rest of the civilised world. There would still be a principle of assured destruction.

Provided the "international community" do act as an "international community" rather than a bunch of nations looking out for their own selfish interests.
Many nations might judge that their interests are far better served by staying well out any nuclear blackmail situation involving the "nasty" nation and the discomfited "nice" ones who disarmed while they make sure the same won't happen to them by firing up their weapons programs again!

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

The US needs a credible nuclear theat. It forms a deterant not just against a nuclear attack,but also from a biological & chemical attack,which are more likely to occur given the comparative ease in development and deployment. It also keeps countries like China in check,makes them think twice about ,say, invading Taiwan and closing off the South China Sea.
AS for China surpassing the US militarily in t he next 50 years,i wouldn't think it too likely.Yeah, they might have a bigger army,but the US military is better equiped,better trained and most cruicially a lot more experienced.

Correction, the US needs a credible nuclear threat for itself and the interests of its allies (Taiwan is an ally of the US since Reagan).

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

Correction, the US needs a credible nuclear threat for itself and the interests of its allies (Taiwan is an ally of the US since Reagan).

so is Ireland.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

so is Ireland.

So is Canada.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

So is Canada.

wow, a lot of allies must mean they need a lot of Nuclear weapons:rolleyes:

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

wow, a lot of allies must mean they need a lot of Nuclear weapons:rolleyes:

I am still wondering why India developed nuclear weapons then..

Maybe if the UK had a powerful enemy who had invaded two countries in the region recently and was a constant threat then maybe that would be a better argument for the support of its proposed nuclear plans..

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

I am still wondering why India developed nuclear weapons..

Because of Pakistan, but then I guess Pakistan will say they develped nuclear weapons because of India:rolleyes:

bonkey

I'm trying to figure out what all this discussion about the US has to do with Tony Blair's announcement about The british plans regarding their nuclear weapons. (I'm slow like that.)

So...regarding the topic itself...

It should be noted that according to the article linked to in the OP, Blair is talking about developing new delivery systems, not new nuclear weapons. There is a subtle difference. He is not talking about scrapping existing warheads and building new ones, but rather building a new generation of Trident missiles.

I aso don't think the move is in breach of any international agreement, as it is the delivery system is what is being renovated. The NPT, from what I can tell, doesn't ban delivery systems at all.

I'm not saying its a good thing. Indeed, I tend to believe that once the nuclear nations begin work on their nuclear weapons systems they will only spur other nations further to get into the game, rather than discouraging them. In short, it will make the world a less safe place...arguably defeating the very purpose that the weapons are being upgraded for.

As for China being the next big bad. Sure they will be. Just like Avian Flu.

AbusesToilets

I really don't see what the big deal with this is,every military needs to upgrade it's arms from time to time maintain their viability.Nuclear weapons are no different in this regard than assualt rifles or jeeps.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what all this discussion about the US has to do with Tony Blair's announcement about The british plans regarding their nuclear weapons. (I'm slow like that.)

I thought the US 'owned' all the nuclear stuff that is stationed 30 miles form me. The UK cannot use their weapons of mass destruction without the explicit say so of the US as they do not have the codes. The US have the codes.

It should be noted that according to the article linked to in the OP, Blair is talking about developing new delivery systems, not new nuclear weapons. There is a subtle difference. He is not talking about scrapping existing warheads and building new ones, but rather building a new generation of Trident missiles.

Rather neat then that the existing war heads are useless without the delivery system. It is called a system and should be considered as a system.

Judt

The equation of nuclear weapons is thus: If they have weapons, and we don’t, then we must bend to their will or face inevitible destruction. If we have nuclear weapons and they don’t, the situation is reversed. If we have nuclear weapons and they have nuclear weapons, nobody will attack anybody with nuclear weapons because of the consequences.

Well, hopefully. The problem with nuclear disarmament is that it’s like two people standing with a gun to one anothers head – who moves first, and can you trust the other guy not to shoot you in the head if you lower your gun first? Or, if you both lower at the same time, might he pull a fast one and manage to shoot you before you can shoot him?

It’s not an ideal situation, but in reality the British need to replace their delivery systems in the next 20 years or else they could be screwed pretty quickly. Remember, right now we’re fighting terrrorists, but tomorrow who knows? It took exactly ten years for the Nazi’s to go from getting into government to their troops being in Stalingrad. What a difference a day makes, as we saw on 9/11. History moves too fast to think that you can put that gun down.

A Dub in Glasgo

Judt wrote:

The equation of nuclear weapons is thus: If they have weapons, and we don’t, then we must bend to their will or face inevitible destruction. If we have nuclear weapons and they don’t, the situation is reversed. If we have nuclear weapons and they have nuclear weapons, nobody will attack anybody with nuclear weapons because of the consequences.

Souldn't this mean that all countries should have nuclear weapons?

Manic Moran

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I thought the US 'owned' all the nuclear stuff that is stationed 30 miles form me. The UK cannot use their weapons of mass destruction without the explicit say so of the US as they do not have the codes. The US have the codes.

Where the devil did you get that little gem of mis-information? You may be mistaking the situation for that which had existed with the Canadian nukes, the shared control of those weapons caused by the unique case of Canada having shared responsibility for the defense of North America, and using donated American missiles and warheads.

The British have been making their own bombs without American help for some time. If they didn't have sole control of the submarine's weapons, they wouldn't have retired the air-delivered nuclear arm.

NTM

spanner

I think the question really is is nuclear deterinent still valid post cold war and I think the answer is yes.

Do you think the USA would have attacked Japan if they thought Japan had nuclear capability to strike them, I dont think they would of so easily.

In the Cuban missile crisis the USA and USSR held back from the brink because
they knew that if they didnt the consquences would be terrible. MAD is still as valid today as the 1960s.

Just like the school yard, you are not going to pick on somebody if you know there is a chance he could beat you up.


I still do think NATO countries do not need as many nukes and should aim to have a global reduction in arms

Gurgle

I believe the older weapons were built on the basis that the bigger the explosion the better, while the newer 'dial-a-yield' ones allow more controlled destruction.

This makes it possible to take out an enemy nuclear launch site without wiping out the civilian population within a 10 mile radius.

So new nukes are better.

And I'd personally give the big red button to Blair rather than Bush. The heightened state of security, scare-mongering, incitement to hatred, extended detention without charge, retraction of civil rights, government-controlled media etc. in the US are frightningly similar to 1930s Germany.

And thats before you consider the unprovoked invasion & occupation of 2 countries in the last 5 years.

Britain may well have a nuke permanently aimed at Washington in the next decade.

AbusesToilets

Gurgle wrote:

And I'd personally give the big red button to Blair rather than Bush. The heightened state of security, scare-mongering, incitement to hatred, extended detention without charge, retraction of civil rights, government-controlled media etc. in the US are frightningly similar to 1930s Germany.

And thats before you consider the unprovoked invasion & occupation of 2 countries in the last 5 years.

Britain may well have a nuke permanently aimed at Washington in the next decade.

:rolleyes: genius. I'm sorry,i must be mistaken in my belief that the US held off an invasion from the USSR for 50 years with the threat of it's nuclear weapons.All the while openly proclaiming that it would be prepared to put the lives of it's own populace on the line in the event of a showdown in Europe,not to mention countries in Asia,like Tiawan,Australia and Japan.Something it's still doing today.
Britain refurbishing it's missiles is a non-issue,it's standard procedure for a country to maintain it's arms,from the lowest private and his rifle all the way up to a country's strategic nuclear weapons systems.Nuclear disarmament has been going on steadily for decades.Developing more practical warheads doesn't run contrary to this,it allows a country to divest itself of big,obselete ICBMs and their ilk and maintain a smaller more tactically flexible stockpile.

Gurgle

AbusesToilets wrote:

:rolleyes: genius. I'm sorry,i must be mistaken in my belief that the US held off an invasion from the USSR for 50 years with the threat of it's nuclear weapons.

What makes you think Europe was under any threat from the USSR before the US built bases all over the continent with the political philosophy 'Communism is bad mkay?'

On the subject, other than Afghanistan (where they were asked for help by the communist government who had lost control), who have the USSR attempted to invade since WW2?

AbusesToilets wrote:

All the while openly proclaiming that it would be prepared to put the lives of it's own populace on the line in the event of a showdown in Europe.

Same way they rushed in when Germany invaded Poland?
Pity they had to swim all the way and it took over 2 years to join in.

One could even go so far as to suggest that the building of bases everywhere was to ensure that any showdown with the USSR didn't happen on American soil.

They've never been shy about sending thousands of their populace to their deaths for political gain.

Maybe instead of just regurgitating cold war propaganda, you might do a little research on the subject.

Start here.

Judt

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Souldn't this mean that all countries should have nuclear weapons?

In a fair and just world? Sure. In the real world? Well, let me put it to you this way: Who would you prefer to have their finger on the button? Tony Blair, or Kim Jong-il?

Or, should I put it this way: A democratically elected, half-sane person; or a guy who likes movies so much he kidnaps the actors?

Nations like the US and Britain have nuclear weapons as a hangover from the Second World War. Then the Soviet Union developed them. Suddenly, you either had them or you sided with somebody who did. Unfortunate reality, but it is a reality nonetheless.

Gurgle

Judt wrote:

Then the Soviet Union developed them.

at a time when the only country to have used nukes was rabidly anti-communist

Judt wrote:

you either had them or you sided with somebody who did.

Begs the question - why did Britain develop them at all when their best friends the US had enough to 'protect' everyone?

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

I really don't see what the big deal with this is,every military needs to upgrade it's arms from time to time maintain their viability.Nuclear weapons are no different in this regard than assualt rifles or jeeps.

Every military? Iran.. N Korea..

This a huge deal. You have a country telling another country not to even dare think about developing nuclear weapons while it upgrades it's own. Double standards and hyprocrisy? "B-b-but we're the good guys and they're the bad guys argument" is getting thinner and thinner.

Fratton Fred

Gurgle wrote:

at a time when the only country to have used nukes was rabidly anti-communist

Begs the question - why did Britain develop them at all when their best friends the US had enough to 'protect' everyone?

Anglo-American relations weren't exactly brilliant after the second world war. Britain considered the Americans to have sold Europe down the river in an attamept to appease Stalin (Don't forget, Britain only went to war because of it's treaty with Poland, Churchill wanted Russia out of Poland but the Yanks basically gave it to them.) and, I guess, there was a great deal of mis-trust of America. Britain also considered itself to still be a great colonial power.

bonkey

Judt wrote:

Well, let me put it to you this way: Who would you prefer to have their finger on the button? Tony Blair, or Kim Jong-il?

In order of preference: Neither, both, Blair, Jong-Il.

Or, should I put it this way: A democratically elected, half-sane person; or a guy who likes movies so much he kidnaps the actors?\

Something that you seem to be overlooking :

Jong-Il, like every successful leader, is sane and smart enough to realise that their own personal security is key to staying in power.

People love to talk up how nutty that North Korean is almost as much as they'd like us to believe the political leaders in Iran are no different to suicide bombers in their mindset (that they'll willingly die in order to strike an ineffective blow against the West at the cost of their own lives).

But you know what...I can't think of the last Iranian leader who lay down his life in order to do something symbolic, futile, stupid, and ultimately to the cost of his own nation. I can't think of the last time Jong-Il actually carried out on one of his blusterful threats in terms of the international community....or indeed is known to have done anything that put his own life at risk.

I'm also not foolish enough to believe that democracy means we will never elect a looney....but apparently the current guy being stable enough is enough to let us believe that there's no real risk from democratic leaders.

Unfortunate reality, but it is a reality nonetheless.

Just as another unfortuante reality is that an imbalance of nuclear power is a greater destabilising factor than a nuclear stalemate. Strangely, though, people queue up to be on the destabilisiing side of this one.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

I'm also not foolish enough to believe that democracy means we will never elect a looney....but apparently the current guy being stable enough is enough to let us believe that there's no real risk from democratic leaders.

A democratically elected leader whos policies led to widespread conflict.
Someone who (thankfully) didn't have nuclear weapons.

Hmmm, lets see, there might have been one...

Was it Adolf something?

Judt

Gurgle wrote:

at a time when the only country to have used nukes was rabidly anti-communist

I'm not debating why the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons. I'm simply saying that they did.

Begs the question - why did Britain develop them at all when their best friends the US had enough to 'protect' everyone?

Because, you never entrust your entire defence to another nation, if you're smart. Britain is the US's biggest ally on the world stage, but don't forget that where it suits everyone to have differing national interests, they will. Nuclear weapons are currency as much as defence.

In order of preference: Neither, both, Blair, Jong-Il.

That's a rather idealistic view. You can't have option 1, simply because we can't - personally, I think the world would be a far, far, far, far better place without nuclear weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction. But, seeing as they exist I am interested in finding the best way to handle them. Giving Kim Jong-il, or any other dictator, nuclear weapons is not a good idea.

For one, he could use them on us. Or, as his regime collapses because of mismanagement and his back is to the wall - without us having ever fired a shot, say - he could use them. He, or any other in his position - he's just one example. Or, perhaps he could use nuclear weapons on his own people. Who'd put it past a guy who can starve them, why not nuke them into line? Then who'd be crying about his nuclear weapons...

The world is not as safe a place as it should be with nuclear weapons about. But we have to let an element of reality enter into our thinking on the subject - we can't get snobby and say "Nuh, the US is the only country in the world to use nukes, why can't the third world countries all have one or two?"

Nuclear weapons are here to stay, but the world has at least survived for sixty years with them, so long as it was halfway sane and real politiking types who had their fingers on the triggers. Not even Khrushchev had the balls for a nuclear conflict, and I daresay that even men like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would do it. But then, I couldn't say that they - or their successors - wouldn't. If Iran had had the bomb at the time of the revolution, would Israel still exist? If the arab states had the bomb at the time of one of their routs at the hands of the Israeli army, would the middle east still exist?

As bad as they are, the United States - when it was the worlds only nuclear power - sacked MacArthur for his dogged suggestions that the US should nuke communist China back to the stone age. It certainly would have saved plenty of bother for the anti-Communist west. Just bear that in mind that while leaders like Jong-il starve their people and talk about wiping other nations - nd peoples - off the face of the earth.

Frederico

Judt wrote:

For one, he could use them on us. Or, as his regime collapses because of mismanagement and his back is to the wall - without us having ever fired a shot, say - he could use them. He, or any other in his position - he's just one example. Or, perhaps he could use nuclear weapons on his own people. Who'd put it past a guy who can starve them, why not nuke them into line? Then who'd be crying about his nuclear weapons...

But we have to let an element of reality enter into our thinking on the subject

Reality of situation, NK wants nukes for a) muscle b) forcing trade

Not for y) preemptively attacking a nuclear power or z) using on their own people

Lets hope the leader of Uzbekistan doesn't get nukes, he boils people alive, oh wait, he's our friend, he can have nukes.

John_C

Gurgle wrote:

What makes you think Europe was under any threat from the USSR before the US built bases all over the continent with the political philosophy 'Communism is bad mkay?'.

The fact that the USSR kept all the countries it 'liberated' after the second world war convinces me.

AbusesToilets

By Gurgle What makes you think Europe was under any threat from the USSR before the US built bases all over the continent with the political philosophy 'Communism is bad mkay?'

On the subject, other than Afghanistan (where they were asked for help by the communist government who had lost control), who have the USSR attempted to invade since WW2?

Well i'm sure the countries that formed the Eastern block of Soviet republics might hold a less favourable view of communism than you.As for soviet invasions,well there's all of eastern europe to look at,with the invasions of Hungary and Czechslovakia being notable in occuring after the conclusion of WW2.The subsuming of Eastern Europe occured in the course of the war,a period in which there weren't US bases built up across the continent.The unlikelyhood of a conflict on US soil wasn't the result of there being bases in Europe,it was due to the inherent difficulties in an army attempting to launch and sustain an invasion on the US.Unlike ,say,Europe.
As for being rabidly anti-communist,well i don't know about you but i'm not of the view that a political ideal which systematically oppressed the lives of millions and committed what amounts to acts of genocide against those same subjugated masses (Famine in Ukraine : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Ukraine) is one that should be looked upon fondly.

AbusesToilets

By Frederico Every military? Iran.. N Korea..

This a huge deal. You have a country telling another country not to even dare think about developing nuclear weapons while it upgrades it's own. Double standards and hyprocrisy? "B-b-but we're the good guys and they're the bad guys argument" is getting thinner and thinner.

The difference being that Britain has a 50 year history of responsible ( for the most part) government since the development of it's nuclear weapons and has not threatened other countries with annhilation on a regular basis.Nor has it forcibly starved millions of it's own citizens to the point of famine.Are you of the opinion that a Nuclear armed Iran or North Korea is a good thing.Or that blink and you miss them military dictatorships in Africa or Asia should expend millions of dollars aquiring nukes for the purpose of plurarity on the world stage?
Can you tell me the last time any of the western countries threatened another with nuclear attack (as opposed to defensive use)? Because i'm pretty sure that it's quite deliberately expressed(certainly with regard to the US) that there will never be a First Strike authorised by these governments.
Feel free to scream hypocrisy,but i know i will sleep better with the knowledge that everything that can be done to prevent these countries from becoming nuclear powers is being done.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

The difference being that Britain has a 50 year history of responsible ( for the most part) government since the development of it's nuclear weapons and has not threatened other countries with annhilation on a regular basis.Nor has it forcibly starved millions of it's own citizens to the point of famine.Are you of the opinion that a Nuclear armed Iran or North Korea is a good thing.Or that blink and you miss them military dictatorships in Africa or Asia should expend millions of dollars aquiring nukes for the purpose of plurarity on the world stage?
Can you tell me the last time any of the western countries threatened another with nuclear attack (as opposed to defensive use)? Because i'm pretty sure that it's quite deliberately expressed(certainly with regard to the US) that there will never be a First Strike authorised by these governments.
Feel free to scream hypocrisy,but i know i will sleep better with the knowledge that everything that can be done to prevent these countries from becoming nuclear powers is being done.

Yes, you are right, common sense, etc but..


I don't even know why there is debate anymore on NK, we don't have the stomach to stop them, we are impotent in that situation all we can do is stop him buying ipods, wring our hands and hope the country collapses itself.

Yeah India and Pakistan are always at a heightened state.. why do we care in the slightest about that situation? oh right thats cos its only 1.2 billion "brown" people at stake, not ourselves.

Whats the prize for NK and Iran when they get a full nuclear deterant? they only have to look at what Israel can get away with..

With our pre-emptive wars, upgrading our own nuclear weapons, and only allowing our 'buddies' to have nukes we are kinda loosing our high moral ground on the subject don't you think?

The whole thing isn't a WW2 cleancut good guy/bad guy thing anymore, Britain upgrading its own nuclear weapons against a possible imaginary threat in 20 years is just giving Iran another reason to pursue its own. Who knows what enemies Iran might have in the next 20 years.. same argument.

Gurgle

Frederico wrote:

Whats the prize for NK and Iran when they get a full nuclear deterant? they only have to look at what Israel can get away with.

They get moved from the 'Axis of Evil' list to the 'misguided friends' list.

Look at what Iraq got for not building nukes.