Renewal of the UK's nuclear weapon capability
Posted by Robert Key, MP for Salisbury, at 16:29, Sat 9 December 2006:
Next March I will have to vote on whether or not we accept the Government's proposals for renewal of our nuclear deterrent. Please let me know what you think.
Is this the moment to drop our guard?Would anyone be impressed? Is it morally justifiable to renew?What of our international treaty obligations? What about our UK science & technology skills base? Is there a read-across to new nuclear power plants?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Duncan McDonald, 17:41, Sat 9 December 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Firstly I welcome the invitation to have my opinion canvassed by my MP, very refreshing!
In response to the question of nuclear deterrent, I don’t think there is any choice but to renew. At a time when more and more unstable countries are striving to join the nuclear weapons club I think it is a dangerous idea to think about leaving.
This coupled with Tony Blair’s desperation to please US policy over the UK populations own wishes means that we are more of a threat to the world and therefore more of a target (this is probably so he has a lucrative after dinner market in the US when he steps down).
This is why we must have a deterrent that works as a deterrent. But this is not all, we MUST equip our armed forces with better conventional weapons and kit as well. There is so much money being taxed and fleeced from us that there must be some available for our armed forces. These people are being put in ever more difficult circumstances and the contempt shown by our government for them is appalling. People are dying needlessly because they will not spend money where it is needed. They will pay a fortune for consultants and for staff to measure and test but not to put money where it is needed most, by equipping out troops with body armour and weapons that work.
Finally I think we should show some recognition to our armed forces by rewarding them to show that we really value the difficult job they do and to ensure that partners and loved ones are unquestionably cared for instantly, not put through even more pain and suffering after losing someone in combat or accident by introducing lots of delays and red tape or by evicting the family from MOD accommodation which has happened in the past few years.
This country used to be great and we could justify calling it Great Britain. These last few years has made me feel embarrassed to say which country I am from because of the appalling state this country has been put in under Labour. So to sum up there does need to be investment in a nuclear deterrent however under certain conditions which are:
The do not spend the bulk of the money on think tanks qangos red tape additional management performance targets
etc or there will be no money to actually produce weapons and we actually develop our own foreign policy NOT just blindly follow the President of the USA, Tony Blair has destroyed this country and it will take a lot to rebuild the damage.
Posted by David Salter, 15:45, Sun 10 December 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
The need for a nuclear deterrent was very much part of the post 1945 "Cold War" where the threat was seen as coming from the Soviet Union.
Where are the countries that truly present a threat to British society today? If we believe all that we hear in the media the major threat is from extremism that is not based on national lines but is based on ideology.
There are a few so-called "rogue states" Such as North Korea and Iran but they seem to be targeting their anger more at the US plus I believe these countries lack a launch platform that would deliver a nuclear weapon by conventional means to UK based targets.
India and Pakistan are both countries with strong historical, economic and cultural ties to the UK and the Commonwealth of nations.
Israel has strong economic ties with the UK - more importantly the US.
Myanmar is not yet a strong enough economy to be a threat that would warrant a need for a Nuclear deterent.
The real "threat" is the fear of Terrorism. Our existing Nuclear deterrent has no role in a Terror scenario as a Terrorist wishing to unleash "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is not likely to be dettered. Even our conventional forces - both Civil and Military - have to accept the challenge of this kind of attack on British society.
Our armed forces are under funded and stretched to the limit. If their is funding available lets meet the immediate needs of UK Armed Forces on the ground in Iraq, Afganistan and other missions arround the world - and lets improve the equipment availalble to our troops in the field with new technology to reduce the risk of harm. Our forces in Iraq need better vehicles, better body armour, better communications, better weapons systems and better quality of life for their.
All the above require significant investment - in the case of the first 4 points all require investment in research and development by our defence industries.
The existing Nuclear Deterrent platform still works - are there really world powers that can detect and mittigate our exiting submarine based platforms? The only countrie that could present a threat from the technological standpoint is the US.
The UK has always had a very strong military industry - if we are looking to use those skills lets not subsidise a few million in foreign trade with misplaced investment in military hardward just to keep these private companies functioning. Let's fund research into new technologies for health, give more funding to our education system so we can produce the Graduates that industry needs, and let UK PLC seed fund the future technologies in communications and the media.
Posted by Tony Morland, 21:04, Sun 10 December 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
As a former Soldier I always felt very strongly that the Nuclear deterrent was very important to maintain stability and peace.
However as others have stated that was a very different threat from today’s. I really can't see any point committing that sort of cash to such a project.
If the biggest issue today is the threat to the environment how can Nuclear weapons ever help.
We should demonstrate a positive way forward. Invest in creating world leading universities and facilities to find solutions to the environmental threat.
But above all invest in equipping our armed forces with the best conventional equipment and our homeland security services so they can weed out the terrorist enemies on our own shores.
Posted by Bob Wilcox, 16:49, Tue 19 December 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thank you fo the opportunity to comment.
1. The need for nuclear deterrence is no longer there since the end of the Cold War.
2. The "new" nuclear powers [North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan & ?? Iran]do not pose athreat to the UK.
3. Terrorist groups will not be deterred by a nuclear capability - they do not present a target.
4. We would lose the last vestige of credibility and moral validity if we replaced our nuclear deterrent while calling on other states to refrain fron developing their own capability.
5. The funding could be better used on conventional armaments and public services.