Now we can only blow up the earth 10000000 times over.

Britain should stop being such a pussy and be the first country to completely rid of all nuclear weapons. This steady negotiation isn't enough, Nations need to just be brave.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Britain should stop being such a pussy and be the first country to completely rid of all nuclear weapons. This steady negotiation isn't enough, Nations need to just be brave.

This +10000, you are right on the button CS.


The nuclear armed nations use the excuse of it being a nuclear deterrent. That excuse can no longer be used as the conflicts these nations are with are people people with "no return address".

The main threats to UK, USA, Russia etc are civilian groups, who are not working for, or not representative of a nation. Did the nuclear deterrent work on 9/11, did it work during the IRA bombings did it stop the recent bombings in Russia? No, the nuclear deterrence is a farce.

I hope you guys can see the light

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Britain should stop being such a pussy and be the first country to completely rid of all nuclear weapons. This steady negotiation isn't enough, Nations need to just be brave.

For once I actually agree with you CS! Don't get used to the idea though

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

The nuclear armed nations use the excuse of it being a nuclear deterrent. That excuse can no longer be used as the conflicts these nations are with are people people with "no return address".

The main threats to UK, USA, Russia etc are civilian groups, who are not working for, or not representative of a nation. Did the nuclear deterrent work on 9/11, did it work during the IRA bombings did it stop the recent bombings in Russia? No, the nuclear deterrence is a farce.

Anyone with just a bit of understanding of the nuclear deterrence philosophy understands that there is no intent to deter groups such as the IRA, PLO, or any of the other myriad number of terrorist organizations. There never was and there can never be. It's intent is to deter other nuclear 'powers' or those who would be such.

There are still nuclear threats to the so called 'free world'. North Korea, in particular, comes to mind immediately. 'We' continue to piss and moan about Iran attempting to become a nuclear power, meanwhile the most isolated country in the world, NK with 26 million citizens, led by a certified madman, wielding absolute power, actually has nuclear weapons and is working feverishly on delivery systems. As a friend puts it, Kim stands over there in the corner jumping up and down, shouting "hey look at me" and we, for the most part, ignore him. Europe is safe, for now, from the NK madman, but Japan, SK, China, NZ, Australia and parts of the US and Russia are not. We ignore him at our own peril.

What I can't understand is the idea that lead the 'powers' now meeting, to not invite NK & Iran, not that I think they would have accepted, mind you, but their refusal would have underlined their very real danger.

To completely lay down your arms in the face of a threat, such as that posed by NK, and the potential of Iran, would be nothing short of pure, irresponsible, folly. Britain and the other NATO nations, get rid of their stockpiles? Maybe, after all they would still have the U.S. nuclear umbrella under which to cower.

Originally Posted by Don

Anyone with just a bit of understanding of the nuclear deterrence philosophy understands that there is no intent to deter groups such as the IRA, PLO, or any of the other myriad number of terrorist organizations. There never was and there can never be. It's intent is to deter other nuclear 'powers' or those who would be such.

During the cold war the West viewed the Eastern Bloc as the enemies, and stated that there was a need to have nukes as a deterrence to them attacking.

Now the main treats to the west aren't stopped by the "nuclear deterrent", if NK was to attack I'd have thought that the US would be able to use all those conventional missiles you have lying around, or were they a complete waste of money?

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

During the cold war the West viewed the Eastern Bloc as the enemies, and stated that there was a need to have nukes as a deterrence to them attacking.

Now the main treats to the west aren't stopped by the "nuclear deterrent", if NK was to attack I'd have thought that the US would be able to use all those conventional missiles you have lying around, or were they a complete waste of money?

Since you are such an expert on U.S. nuclear/non nuclear posture and deterrent capability, which of our conventional missiles would you recommend? Conventional weapons/missiles are not a nuclear deterrent. Only a fool, (if the shoe fits, wear it) would advocate a non nuclear response to a nuclear attack. Even the current POTUS/CinC would not take too f**king kindly to that madman in NK launching a nuclear attack on the U.S. and I assure you our citizenry would not either. I repeat, threat of a non nuclear reply to a potential nuclear attack is NOT a deterrent. Don't worry about it though as NZ can continue to cower under our umbrella.

PS: If you don't think that NK & Iran aren't valid nuclear threats, you live in a fairy tale world.

Originally Posted by Don

Don't worry about it though as NZ can continue to cower under our umbrella.

Considering our stand on nukes caused the breakup of our alliance with the USA, I really can't imagine your govt caring abit about us. Your govt uses us when it's convenient for them like the summit in Washington, your govt has condemned us for standing up to USA and the other nuclear armed nations, but when its convenient for them they parade us as their close nuclear free friend, but gives us nothing for all they take.

Originally Posted by Don

PS: If you don't think that NK & Iran aren't valid nuclear threats, you live in a fairy tale world.

The biggest nuclear threat currently is from the civilian groups that have attacked the USA, UK and Russia, it is purely dumb luck that these groups haven't procured nuclear weapons. If you look at the nukes dropped on Japan, they were very basic and even modern weapons are still quite basic. There is enough nuclear material lying around for these groups to make thousands of bombs. I saw on television a American who was involved in inspecting nuclear materials in eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain. He described nuclear material that could be used for a bomb, that was unguarded and secured with rusty locks. What about the trains full of uranium that go through London, that until recently were unguarded? The only reason why there is any security on the weekly trains is because someone planted a fake bomb on one as a stunt. If someone blew up one of those trains thousands of people could be killed in London. In 1995 a dirty bomb was found before it could be detonated in Moscow.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | 'Terror risk' over nuclear cargo


The civilian groups that want to procure this material, don't give a s*** about your nuclear deterrent.

"The White House issued its Nuclear Posture Review Tuesday. It told our enemies that the U.S. won't respond to a biological attack with nukes. From now on if we want to destroy a country, we're just going to send them the White House economic advisers."

--comedian Argus Hamilton

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Considering our stand on nukes caused the breakup of our alliance with the USA, I really can't imagine your govt caring abit about us. Your govt uses us when it's convenient for them like the summit in Washington, your govt has condemned us for standing up to USA and the other nuclear armed nations, but when its convenient for them they parade us as their close nuclear free friend, but gives us nothing for all they take.

And what do we call a nation that let's themselves be 'passed around' in such a fashion? Twas a 'lady', maybe slut would be the proper term. Could it be that you lot realize in your hearts that you may need the protection you know you'll get from us should the need arise, not if, but when, the madman in Pyongyang goes too far?

The biggest nuclear threat currently is from the civilian groups that have attacked the USA, UK and Russia, it is purely dumb luck that these groups haven't procured nuclear weapons. If you look at the nukes dropped on Japan, they were very basic and even modern weapons are still quite basic. There is enough nuclear material lying around for these groups to make thousands of bombs. I saw on television a American who was involved in inspecting nuclear materials in eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain. He described nuclear material that could be used for a bomb, that was unguarded and secured with rusty locks. What about the trains full of uranium that go through London, that until recently were unguarded? The only reason why there is any security on the weekly trains is because someone planted a fake bomb on one as a stunt. If someone blew up one of those trains thousands of people could be killed in London. In 1995 a dirty bomb was found before it could be detonated in Moscow.

The civilian groups that want to procure this material, don't give a s*** about your nuclear deterrent.

That's old news, tell me something the entire world, outside NK that is, doesn't already know. The fact remains that NK is currently a viable threat and Iran, if it has it's way will be. Should we, should the world, simply ignore those real threats because a nuclear deterrent is no threat against terrorist groups? You defend, as best you can, against all recognizable threats

Originally Posted by Don

And what do we call a nation that let's themselves be 'passed around' in such a fashion? 'Twas a 'lady', maybe slut would be the proper term. Could it be that you lot realize in your hearts that you may need the protection you know you'll get from us should the need arise, not if, but when, the madman in Pyongyang goes too far?

Perhaps the following quotation expresses it best as we're, none of us, nations or individuals, without fault:

"The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes"

—Stanley Kubrick, 1963

If Pyongyang is such a mad man why has he not launched nuclear weapons at japan for sheer "shits and giggles" already? It sounds to me like you simply want public backing through fear.

I don't think any country will give up it's nuclear missile program. Not because they offer a 'deterrent' as such, more as a method of 'insurance'. And if many places in the world are going to develop them like Iran, I see no reason for the UK not to keep researching them and stay ahead of the field. Not that the U.S isn't already many miles ahead of our technology though :/

Historically two countries have given up their nuclear wepaons.
Ukraine and South Africa.


The North Koreans would have to be flaming idiots of epc proportion to give theirs up with so many enemy military exercises persistently threatening their borders.
Clearly they would rather starve than do this.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Considering our stand on nukes caused the breakup of our alliance with the USA, I really can't imagine your govt caring abit about us. Your govt uses us when it's convenient for them like the summit in Washington, your govt has condemned us for standing up to USA and the other nuclear armed nations, but when its convenient for them they parade us as their close nuclear free friend, but gives us nothing for all they take.
.

You know I fully expect that the U.K.government isn't going to be much different. However, I personally feel an honour debt towards your people for the help they have always volunteered in our darkest hours.
The aid you have sent us.

So I can't speak on behalf of them but I can speak on behalf of me. When you need help, it will come.



With reagrds to what help are nukes whenthe threats are all internal terrorist actions.

Before nukes, they were also external mass formation military actions, as well as the terrorism.

Terrorist actions aren't really a threat to our nation at all. More of an irritation.


No government overthrown, no ability to wage war curtailed.



Compare the terrorist attacks in London to those of the Blitz.
Because of nukes the only options our enemies have had to attack us for a long time is asymetric. Gnit bites instead of body blows.

Originally Posted by claire

Now we can only blow up the earth 10000000 times over.

If your going to post, please do so with factual comments and correct pronunciation. Earth is the proper name of the planet we live on, and thus should ALWAYS be spelt with a capitalised E, the lower case should only be used when speaking of earth, meaning dirt. With regards your number of the times we can destroy our planet, I would strongly suggest you understand the subject matter better, We may be capable of destroying the human world we have created, with respect to the Western and Industrialised world, but we are not even capable of killing all humans, thankfully, let alone the bloody planet.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Britain should stop being such a pussy and be the first country to completely rid of all nuclear weapons. This steady negotiation isn't enough, Nations need to just be brave.

The pacifists are always the ones who want everyone else to die on their behalf, but not willing to fight themselves, they lack backbone, and whilst this will never stop nations fighting, the Nuclear weapons that existed since 1945 HAVE caused the Industrialised powers to consider actions before they escalated out of proportion, the Cuban Missile Crisis and a couple of other events have shown that. There is no point in conflict if the consequences of your attack is a devastating retaliatory assault by your opposition, sneak attacks are a thing of the past when dealing with NATO and Industrialised nations.

Of course the world would be a better place without the risk of Nuclear weapons, and that the resources spent on them was better targeted to social matters around the globe, but this is the real world we live in. Nations like North Korea and Iran feel that the only way they can remain in power is to acquire Nuclear weapons, and these despotic nations will not bat an eye at supplying terror groups with such capabilities, however the threat of total annihilation should be a deterrent to these nations from undertaking such actions, afterall, the source of the weaponised material can soon be determined by scientists and there is not a nation on Earth that would find a way to excuse the use of a Nuke in this way..because they could be the next victim.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Of course the world would be a better place without the risk of Nuclear weapons, and that the resources spent on them was better targeted to social matters around the globe, but this is the real world we live in. Nations like North Korea and Iran feel that the only way they can remain in power is to acquire Nuclear weapons, and these despotic nations will not bat an eye at supplying terror groups with such capabilities, however the threat of total annihilation should be a deterrent to these nations from undertaking such actions, afterall, the source of the weaponised material can soon be determined by scientists and there is not a nation on Earth that would find a way to excuse the use of a Nuke in this way..because they could be the next victim.

The only problem I see here is that MAD or the prospect of massively destructive retaliation against NK or Iran, in particular, depends on rational actors in a position of power in those countries, something that has been in very short supply.