Blair's So-Called Nuclear Defence

[davidmc]

That was the question I posed - and which you and DB have answered.
I can't think of any country who'd try to launch WMD against Britain.
There is no motive I can think of that would compel another country to attack Britain at present.

True. Not according to the traditional forms of war but, those days might be gone. The attacks Britain thwarted recently show that the only consideration taken into acct., by certain foes is psychological impact.

 

[limerickman]

True. Not according to the traditional forms of war but, those days might be gone. The attacks Britain thwarted recently show that the only consideration taken into acct., by certain foes is psychological impact.

So are you suggesting that the retention of WMD by a nuclear power - is for more a sense of security (for that country), rather than to act as a deterrent against a possible nuclear attack (if you get my drift) ?
In other words, "we feel better for having WMD - despite the fact that there is no one who can or will attack us".

 

[darkboong]

True. Not according to the traditional forms of war but, those days might be gone. The attacks Britain thwarted recently show that the only consideration taken into acct., by certain foes is psychological impact.

How would threatening British Citizens with nukage by their own Tridents help ?

 

[EoinC]

...France has a modest nuclear deterrent which allows it to determine whatever policy might suit France...

I understand your thought, Carrera, but I believe you have the cart before the horse. France is not independent because of its nuclear arsenal - it has a nuclear arsenal because of its independence. There are plenty of Nations (sans nuclear) which show independence in their stands on World issues. Having a nuclear arsenal is not a pre-requisite to self-determination.
France's nuclear arsenal, and its predilction for blowing up innocent tropical reefs (and small ships in New Zealand) is a reflection of its independence. It is not the cause of it.
I do not know of any Nation on Earth (except for, maybe, French Polynesia) who feels that it must be careful in its dealings with France because of France's nuclear capabilities.

 

[Carrera]

I just think Blair's a weak leader. I view him as a disaster for this country although it's too late to cry over spilt milk. Most people knew some time ago the Iraq War was dangerous and illegal so both France and Germany expressed their misgivings. Blair, however, actively encouraged Bush.
Therefore, I suppose what I was getting at was Blair didn't feel bold enough even to raise any questions seeing as the U.K. relies on the U.S. for defence. Whose fault is that, though? We ought to have an independent defence system even if it still falls way short of Russia.
If the U.K. had had a stronger leader, the U.S. probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq and gotten itself into this mess.
As long as politicians such as Blair are continualy voted back into office, this situation will probably continue. I can't think of a wose deal that a trained lawyer being voted in as P.M. seeing as lawyers are trained to make lies seem like truth.
Blair very effectively conned the electorate and he even probably conned George Bush.

I understand your thought, Carrera, but I believe you have the cart before the horse. France is not independent because of its nuclear arsenal - it has a nuclear arsenal because of its independence. There are plenty of Nations (sans nuclear) which show independence in their stands on World issues. Having a nuclear arsenal is not a pre-requisite to self-determination.
France's nuclear arsenal, and its predilction for blowing up innocent tropical reefs (and small ships in New Zealand) is a reflection of its independence. It is not the cause of it.
I do not know of any Nation on Earth (except for, maybe, French Polynesia) who feels that it must be careful in its dealings with France because of France's nuclear capabilities.

 

[EoinC]

...We ought to have an independent defence system even if it still falls way short of Russia...

Independent defence system? - Yes, most Nations have some form of defence system which, to varying degrees, has a semblence of independence. How is that a justification for building an independent nuclear arsenal?
Which Nations do you regard as threats, and how do you see them being deterred through your possession of a nuclear arsenal?

 

[davidmc]

Independent defence system? - Yes, most Nations have some form of defence system which, to varying degrees, has a semblence of independence. How is that a justification for building an independent nuclear arsenal?
Which Nations do you regard as threats, and how do you see them being deterred through your possession of a nuclear arsenal?

There is also the issue of the enormous cost's incurred for reasearch, deployment, stockpiling & disposal (oxymoronic). I don't suspect most nations have that kind of money lying about to expend on a system that will only be used once.