The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Does it make sense for Britain, or any country for that matter, to maintain a nuclear arsenal, or could the money saved by dismantling the arsenal be better used elsewhere? Would the world be a safer place?

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

I think they should do what Cameron and some of the others were considering, join together with our closest European countries to have a shared deterrent - that would be much cheaper for all us and could even be a bigger deterrent. If 4 countries spent half what they normally would they could end up with something twice as powerful.

On the other hand, I don't like nuclear weapons and would like to see everyone ditch them - but think the shared scheme is a good compromise until that time ever comes.

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Hmmm interesting what you say Azz. 70 years ago the thought of sharing a deterent such as this with, for example, Germany would have been unthinkable wouldn't it? The world grows ever smaller by the day. I wonder who we may want to share a deterent with in another 70 years? Maybe we'll just need one to protect us from an alien invasion from outer space!

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

I think the great problem is that you cannot uninvent something. Nuclear weapons exist and we have to deal with that fact, and the reality is that you cannot give yours up unless everyone else does.
I have just read that USA and Russia have just confirmed another reduction in warheads as part of their continuing non-proliferation efforts, so we are slowly moving in the right direction.
I hadn't heard about the sharing options with our allies which sounds good on paper, but who will have their finger on the button? Another b****y committee?

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

There is no doubt in my mind that the biggest threat to our security is not from huge national wars, country against country, but from small groups of fanatical idealists intent on promoting their cause by whatever means they can.

Azz makes a good point that the maths are compelling for co-operation with our allies. 4 x 50% reductions still equals 2 x 100% capability so we must go down this route, but how we tackle the terrorists is a much more difficult problem.

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

A start might be to stop interfering in other country's business, and stop killing Moslems in illegal wars. If we aren't killing them then they might not want to kill us quite as much!

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

You are right Plantman, you can't uninvent something and I used to think that all the nuclear countries should dissarm. I was once an ardent CND supporter, but I now don't think it is as easy as that. You can't stop other countries without nuclear power wanting that power and how do you stop them from developing it, because as you know it is not just used for armaments. There are enough nuclear armaments to destroy the World several times over anyway, but I think we have to have strong alliances and keep that deterrent, even though it costs such a lot of money to do it. The lid is already off of Pandora's box.

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Very well said !

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Ditto............

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

There's an old saying that applies to this debate. It states that the only thing better than owning a hammer is knowing someone that owns one. If the super powers are armed to the teeth then it's best for the lesser powers to disarm after allying themselves to one of the super powers. The only exception I can see in the world is Israel, who is surrounded by enemies. Their nuclear deterent is serious and I feel the only reason they've not been attacked.