|
Post by hallmackem on Oct 20, 2009 17:24:05 GMT
Reading the opinions page of The Times yesterday I happened upon a letter I was outraged by. Enough to respond to. An Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cambridge University had written in to argue that nuclear disarmament is a bad idea. He founded said argument on the premise that the existence of such weapons had sustained peace since their invention and that their use would be less harmful than twentieth century style warfare involving massive armies. Imagine my surprise that a man of such 'education' could make such a statement. Sustained peace? What? My response included a list (that needed to be edited down twice) of the wars since Hiroshima was bombed and the argument that nuclear weapons cannot provide a deterrent against terrorist networks (the major threats to global peace) as they do not have defined national boundaries so the doctrine of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) ceases to be valid.
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Oct 20, 2009 18:01:41 GMT
With the huge National Debt we now have there is a good argument for getting rid of our nuclear weapons as a cost cutting measure let alone any other reason. However, it's now another of those situations where the world has progressed too far down that road to reverse it as both North Korea & Iran are a threat and who's to predict who else may be in the future?
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Oct 20, 2009 18:31:43 GMT
I would imagine that it was originally as a deterrent to any Arab states considering blitzing Israel - a threat that the current Iranian situation has exacerbated and possibly even condoned Israel's ownership of them in world eyes. Madness, as this is probably a greater threat than even North Korea as I think China would have a lot to say about that but who would gainsay their use in the Middle East?
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Oct 21, 2009 15:57:02 GMT
It would be difficult for Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel though because of the close proximity of so many Arab countries (I doubt Jordan would take too kindly to it!).
It's still most probable that there never will be a nuclear war unless either a terrorist organisation or a mental dictator get hold of them.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Oct 22, 2009 18:58:31 GMT
As the World supply of fossil fuels and fresh water slowly disappear helped by the explosion of third world populations and the USA declines as the one Superpower we are in for a rough ride. The only thing at the moment stopping war on a large scale is the nuclear threat - ironically all the 'peace-nicks' are only able to debate their cause in relative safety because somewhere a submarine is keeping their pleasant land safe from attack. Britains future lies with World trade , the EU experiment will not last and Britain always performed better when it had a broader view and acted independently and in its own interests. When this time comes Britain will need a navy stronger than the one it has at present with a deterrent just simply because the rise of China, the resurrection of Russia and the rise of many other nuclear states will be the future and it will be a less certain future as the USA weakens. The explosion of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels will mean many more Irans as the Middle East needs to replace oil for its large populations and so trying to stop proliferation will fail and more nuclear armed states will emerge (they will use all kinds of deception as Israel did to get its weapons) so unless we want to go to war with everyone Britain had better get used to the idea and just make sure it has enough capability to deter any agressor and protect its interests. Failure to do that would be irresponsible for any Government -but then again this Govermnet has made Britain subservient to the EU , done nothing about the immigrant invasion and presided over the buy out of British industry and infrastructure by foreigners. Just how far they will go in dismantling Britain by stealth is in the hands of the voter but with all parties fighting for the centre ground and trying to be the most politically correct then there is little choice. It would be pleasant if someone stood up in Parliament for once and said they believed in putting Britain first and the EU second - it would be a novelty at the very least.
|
|