No one can ever guarantee the future in any shape or form. We might all be wiped out by a new virus next year. We can't even predict next month's weather. However, we all get on quite happily with this uncertainty. The thing is, we won't ever use these weapons as a first strike, so they are not going to be of any use to us. The sheer absurdity of MAD became apparent when states started to amass so many weapons that they could destroy the entire world many times over. To use the burglar analogy again, you might deter one if he knew you had a loaded revolver next to your bed that you were prepared to use. He is no more deterred from knowing that you also have a howitzer in your garage with a stock pile of bombs, machine guns and nerve gas. That is the situation with the States, Russians and other fans of nuclear weapons. Bacevich (look him up) makes a cogent point when he says, how would we feel if the Chinese had the same number of military bases throughout the world as the US? Read his book to see what that would look like . I don't think we'd like it. (BTW, why, 65 years after WWII are there still 40'000 American soldiers in Japan?) So how do you expect the rest of the world to feel about the US? The US obsession with power projection is one of the contributory factors that fuels nutty states and paranoia in the first place. The desire to cling to nuclear weapons is something that fuels other countries' desire to acquire them. Hardly surprising that Iran wants them if Israel has them. Wouldn't you in their shoes? The West feels it has a moral right to nuclear weapons whereas no one else does. It's pure double standards. Don't expect the rest of the world to take this lying down.
Glidd, I think we do know who we are deterring. It may at some point in time be any regime with nuclear capability. Iran and North Korea are top of the charts at the moment, but that might change over time. If our deterrent was not available "on a daily basis", presumably our enemies would find out which days we switched it off, and therefore it would not be a deterrent on those days (sounds like Manuel). If your guy with white powder lives in Europe, it is a joke. If he lives in South Africa (particularly in the North East of that country), he might want to patent his white powder. I cannot prove there is no god. I cannot prove there is god. (I don't think anyone else can either. If they can, I would be interested to hear from them). I don't need to prove that viable nuclear weapons exist. They do. This is very different to the "imaginary friend" debate. I think there is reasonable suspicion that other nations have nuclear capability. I also think there is reasonable suspicion that some of those nations are more prone to posturing to the outside world to impact on their "credibility" inside their own regimes. Would they press the red button? I doubt it. Is there a risk that they might? Yes. Are we prepared to completely disarm (our nuclear capability) and leave ourselves at the mercy of regimes that we have no influence over, do not understand, and do not trust? I hope not. Many posters on this thread have said that having nuclear weapons is not a deterrent (presumably to other nations using their nuclear weapons against them). All I am asking those posters (perhaps in a clumsy way), is to expand on why they think that is the case. I think that reasonable suspicion exists.
OK, take your scenario. The suitcase nuke would belong to Hezbollah or someone, aided and abetted by Iran. Iran wouldn't put their hand up and say "It was us!". So you'd be unable, especially in the heat of the moment, to do anything. You would argue that if you didn't have nuclear weapons, you couldn't anyway. I would argue, that even if you did have them (a) it would be too late as the nuke has already destroyed London and (b) wiping out (genocide) an entire people because their nutty leadership nuked you wouldn't even be a wise course of action. Is this just to "get even"? If the suitcase nuke goes off, you've already failed. The world isn't like it was in 1945. The other point I would make is this: Suppose there is a school bully and you are his feeble mate who always hangs around with him. How popular are you? When someone gets bored of being bullied, how likely are they to pick on you (an easy target) rather than risk getting their head kicked in by the bully? The Americans have an expansionist, neo-colonialist, imperialist foreign policy. We are the people who always back them up (viz our non-stance on Israel, where the American position is dictated by influential Jews and fundamentalist Christians). We have backed them up in two unnecessary wars (with attendant loss of life and little or no gain). Even our use non/use of our "independent" nuclear deterrent is decided by the US. I'll bet you anything you like that no one's nukes are pointing at Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, Brazil etc etc etc. Our foreign policy increases our insecurity rather than the opposite.
Yes, really, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, anyway. Using your analogy, lets say the OAP is North Korea, and the USA is the burglar (heaven forfend!). Would the burglar really throw down his baseball bat because he thought the OAP's will and / or capability of delivering his weapon was inadequate? I agree that will / capability are part of the equation, but the very existence of the weapon is paramount. MAD was another way of saying, "this is the worst case scenario, fucking sort yourselves out or we will all die" (forgive my license). Thankfully, "we" did pull back from the brink (which in reality was probably in 1962, not 1980). Having a deterrent is not about the willingness to launch a first strike. It is precisely the opposite, I.e. to convince everyone else that it is not a good idea from their perspective either.
........except the Spanish Inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise, surprise and fear, our two main weapons are ......
How can they be top of the charts when Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons (however much they'd like them) and North Korea can't even get a third of the way to us with the ones (like both of them) that they (may) have? And why would NK pick on us anyway? We didn't even fight the Korean War. If both of these states are doing their damnedest to get nuclear weapons, how can you say that the ones we currently have are deterring them at all or influencing their actions in any way unless it is to encourage them to become nuclear states? It doesn't add up. That's irrelevant if you can't show me an enemy who would otherwise be blowing us up now if we didn't have Trident submarines. We do not have such an enemy, any more than the rest of Europe does. The point was to illustrate that we have no real enemies that currently need deterring by nuclear means. I'm not sure that we really have any enemies at all that need deterring. I suspect that my argument was unclear and thus poorly made. I meant that the onus of proof on those that would have us believe in imaginary threats is to prove the existence of that threat. It is not for the unbelievers to prove that there is no threat. Yes some countries have nuclear weapons. So what? Why would Pakistan suddenly decide to obliterate the world? Why would we be top of their list (they're only going to get a one-shot)? Why not? Most other countries (in fact nearly everyone with half a dozen exceptions) are fine with this. What is so special about the UK that it has to be different? Well, I am afraid that you still haven't proven that this reasonable suspicion exists. I need names, motive, capability, likelihood.
Good stuff, Glidd, lets resume tomorrow, this lightweight has briefly fallen asleep in the chair and needs to retire for zzzzzzz's!
Mr Hippo, Either I am naïve or you are paranoid or both. I think i'd sooner be naïve than paranoid, as I am convinced it is paranoia which causes all the problems in the first place. The US is massively paranoid, so was Soviet Russia, the Muslim fundamentalist mindset, Israel etc. Some of these places have perhaps justifiable cause to be a bit paranoid. The US, however isn't one of them.
"And why would NK pick on us anyway? We didn't even fight the Korean War." Tell that to the Gloucesters
Me too!!! I'm just paranoid that people think I am not naive. PS It is all the fault of the US, they are paranoid without justifiable cause, unlike myself!!!
Mutually Assured Destruction relies upon the ability to deliver a retaliatory second strike after receiving a first strike, this concept makes the delivery of a first strike illogical. In the event of anyone launching a first strike against a nation with a second strike capability then deterence, in the MAD sense, has failed. Deterrence and MAD relies upon everyone believeing that the others have that guaranteed second strike capability. Everyone understands that their expensive weapons systems will never be used, but that is the whole point. If Hezbollah detonated a suitcase nuclear device in the UK then it would be reasonable to assume that device came from Iran and Iran should be in no doubt that it would be held responsible. In that way Iran has a vested interest in making sure Hezbollah, or anyone else, doesn't aquire and use a nuclear device in this way. So yes Glidd, if the suitcase bomb goes off we have failed, but that is not an argument for removing our second strike capability.
I think world opinion would have been against the UK if as a result of an Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands the UK government turned Buenos Aries to glass. Similarly if Israel responded to rocket attacks with tactical nuclear weapons. However if the very existence of Israel was at stake then I have no doubt that nuclear weapons would be used, Israel's enemies know that and that knowledge influences their actions. Any response has to be measured and appropriate and nuclear weapons are the last taboo.
Sun Tzu had it right. In times of peace prepare for war and in times of war prepare for peace. This can be interpreted as an aggressive position but equally it can be interpreted as a peaceful one.
if that's your level of historical understanding it seems pointless continuing the discussion. Even if your entire basis of knowledge is from reruns of MASH you'd know the UK were a significant part of the UN forces
Surely we should redress the problem of adequate basic equipment for front line troops before worrying about nuclear capability?
I apologise for my knowledge gap in the question of the Korean War. It is enlightening that I have never seen a documentary on the subject - that seems to indicate the significance it has on the British psyche. Unlike plenty of other wars, I have also never read a book about it (still less watched MASH). OK, I'll concede that the North Koreans may not like us. That still changes nothing about the way I feel about current nuclear deterrence or my world view. For those with a far more insightful vision of history, they may like to explain why Iran doesn't like us, or why we'd have anything to fear from them. That wouldn't be anything to do with supporting dictatorships that helped us make money, would it?
One feature of cruise missiles is that they have onboard intelligence to guide them to their target. That electronic capability could be either jammed or otherwise interfered with to keep them from their target. Yes you could still physically shoot them down if you knew they were there. The key difference with Trident and Polaris before it is that they are ballistic weapons ( big bullets) and once launched have no further electronic guidance. Oh and they fly very much faster as well.
