The nuclear option is scary....I have no doubt that zealots in Israel and Iran would push the shiny red button given half a chance!
The question we should be asking is, do they have anything we need, and is it worth nuking them in order to get it? Well, that's the way things normally work round here.
The simple answer to the problem is basically impossible....... Jerusalem, a holy city for the Palestinians is in Israel and Jerusalem is a holy city for the Jews..... The simple answer is build another Jerusalem.....but then there would be an argument over who had the new one and who had the old one. And as an aside, why TF do some idiots want 'Jerusalem' as the UK national anthem?
What, you mean have no nuclear weapons like the Scandinavians, Germans, Japanese, Italians, Spanish, Swiss etc etc.? Where's the insanity in that? The UK ones are a waste of time, as the UK would never fire them without the US say-so, and if you've got that, you might just as well let the US pay for them and let them off. The "independent deterrent" is a complete joke. Reasonable people are not going to nuke you. Insane people probably won't be deterred in any case.
This seems to be an argument for all free and democratic nations to be disarmed, leaving the weapons in the hands only of ruthless, deranged tyrants. Is that really what you meant, Glidd?
I was talking about nuclear weapons only. I don't believe it's worth having them in the current set up.
As I understand things, the West's nuclear deterrent had a two-fold purpose, to deter the USSR's overwhelming conventional weapon threat and also its nuclear weapon threat. With the lack of any conventionally-armed foe that can credibly threaten NATO (China? doubtful at this stage), one reason for a nuclear deterrent has all but vanished. There still remains the slight difficulty of becoming a conventional-weapon-only nation amongst nuclear powers. Not a comfy place to be in my view. I do not consider some of the nations listed by Glidd to be non-nuclear powers, as in most cases they are backed up by a nuclear power - a distinction without a difference. And by saying, "We don't need nukes, the US has them", you are travelling down a path that may ultimately lead to US support not being there right when you need it most. Why should the US look out for a country that refuses to look after itself?
It would be interesting to know just what level of control over the British 'independent' nuclear deterent the US has. The warheads are British but the missiles are of US origin and serviced by the US. It is known that with other weapons systems, such as aircraft and A-A missiles, the US 'degrades' the software and capability of export variants. Presumably the British nuclear missiles at sea could be fired independently but servicing requirements would see the overall capability degrade with time without US support ???
Only if they have their backs pushed firmly against a wall. Their adversaries know this and it gives them a reason not to push them against a wall, which is why there is a push by some nations to aquire nuclear weapons. There is a strong argument for stopping certain nations from aquiring a nuclear capability because once they get it the game changes. As previously stated I do not subscribe to the belief that international conflic is a result of misunderstandings, there are fundamental differences and conflicts of interest at work.
I think the main reason that the West supports Israel is that if something serious kicks off in Syria or Iran (like nuclear armament) then Israel are the West's answer to hitting them hard, ie Nuking them. AL.
the thing that puzzles me most is that for a people how know better then anyone else what it is to be suppressed to annihilation, they can stand watching their goverment do the same thing to another people in their backyard. Poor will rise and will follow the populist. And no better way to be populistic then by quoting a religious rule. religions are the biggest tribes of all. membership runs into the billions. way bigger then etnicity. It takes huge wealth to get people to rise over it. The cristian church used to say to rulers : you keep them poor, we will keep them stupid. It took 15% of the world population till 1800 to get rid of some monarchs. En then it took 200 years and two catastropich WW before we alle came to a point where we have more to loose then to gain from conflict. It only takes the Yougoslavian wars to remind us how thin this line of defense is and how little it takes to throw all civilisation out of the window. Man is a wild beast. He who denies that does so at his own peril
Quite apart from any technical control, I would say that their political control is total. The UK can't have a military fart without clearing it with the US. Hence we have no "independent deterrent". The Frogs are probably about as close to a Western, non-US nuclear capability you can find, and I bet they would think three times before upsetting Uncle Sam.
That was a good read, even if a little old (it's 10 years old, some of the quotes are 30 years old). I thought it seemed cogent, though I am always a little suspicious of anything on the web from someone I don't know anything about. The web is awash with pressure groups, shadily financed think tanks and the like with obscure agendas, so that you can barely rely on any information at all. But it all makes sense to me.
If Iran is only interested in peaceful nuclear power ( joke) then why is it not developing Thorium rather than Uranium power. The reason to do so is because Uranium can be enriched to make weapons which is the reason we made the same choice. Their intentions are therefore already transparent. No two democracies have ever gone to war so one way to head this off is to promote democracy in Iran. By honourable means preferably but an underhand old fashioned coup backed by western dirty tricks and support for rebellion would seem to be a price worth paying for the "correct" outcome. It already seems the west is looking for a reason to flatten Iran anyway.
I do quite a bit of work at Megiddo. At least if it happens while I'm there I'll have front row seats!
