More Nukes.

[RichardE]

Right this is to do with my own country the UK but I would like all involvement. I AM HORRIFIED AND SICKEND by what they are doing, well what they plan to do. Spend 25 billion on more nukes, or 50 billion dollars you may say. This is just another lousey thing to keep big insudtrys happy and proclaim we are part of the bully nation, it makes me aboslutley sick. This is why I wont live in this damn country all my life, they think they can just go around kicking who they like, its a deteraant. Yea right. Rant =/

 

[LogicChristian]

$50 billion isn't a great deal for a national nuclear deterrant, especially when spread out over a number of years.

Also, Britain has already made sizable cuts in the total number of nuclear weapons as well as the number of types of delivery systems in the recent past.

 

[Balko]

Well, your statement might not be so accurate. It's possible they're just spending money to replace the nukes, and whatever source you have might just make it sound like they're building up their stockpile.

 

[RichardE]

Stockpile or not its still discusting. They say they cannot keep up with the costs of the National HEalth Service but are willing to spend money on things that have no purpose but to cause widespread suffering, it upsets me greatly to see this happen.

 

[LogicChristian]

Stockpile or not its still discusting. They say they cannot keep up with the costs of the National HEalth Service but are willing to spend money on things that have no purpose but to cause widespread suffering, it upsets me greatly to see this happen.

Even if the 25 billion pounds were not spent on the nuclear weapons, that would pay for less than 6 months of the National Health Service budget.

 

[Crusader05]

$50 billion sound like a drop in the bucket to Americans, but to the British thats a heck of a lot of money, especially for something like nukes. Richard, you are 100% justified to be mad over this!

 

[RichardE]

Yea well still i would rather it be spent on health however many months it is, than a weapon of mass destruction I mean didnt we go to war for that reason, but oh suddenly its ok if we keep them. More like do what we say and we wont nuke you.

It is a lot of money, does anyone have any idea how many hospitals are closing and how many nurces have lost thier jobs. Whats going on here!?! If they want to protect our country make sure the nation is healthy!

 

[TheReasoner]

Yea well still i would rather it be spent on health however many months it is, than a weapon of mass destruction I mean didnt we go to war for that reason, but oh suddenly its ok if we keep them. More like do what we say and we wont nuke you.

It is a lot of money, does anyone have any idea how many hospitals are closing and how many nurces have lost thier jobs. Whats going on here!?! If they want to protect our country make sure the nation is healthy!

...and educated. Seems a lot of your public schools fare poorly too.

You are 100% justified in your anger. Anger over this is what I would label righteous anger.
Honestly, I am angry with you over this issue. While the USA is not my country (though it is my fiancee's) the people there are humans like me, and I despise this kind of treatment of anyone.

 

[RichardE]

My country england does not need more nukes, neither does america. Why is it that our governments are so wound up in war and killing. Are these people supposed to be "war" presidents/priministers. Arnt they supposed to care about thier citizens? Schools are not so bad in england but the more money into them would be better, its the health service that bothers me. I just cant see any good in weapons, espehsally ones that can wipe out hundreds of thousands of lifes in one blast. How can it be justified.

 

[LogicChristian]

My country england does not need more nukes, neither does america. Why is it that our governments are so wound up in war and killing. Are these people supposed to be "war" presidents/priministers. Arnt they supposed to care about thier citizens? Schools are not so bad in england but the more money into them would be better, its the health service that bothers me. I just cant see any good in weapons, espehsally ones that can wipe out hundreds of thousands of lifes in one blast. How can it be justified.

The UK isn't getting more nukes, they're replacing the ones they have.

The US is actively getting rid of most of its nuclear weapons as I type this.

 

[Balko]

Still, though, mutually assured destruction is a defensive initiative, not one meant to kill millions. It has more value as a threat than an actual weapon, which is why Japan is the only country that has had a nuke used against them.

 

[RichardE]

Meh it will happen again. Mass war will happen in the future, and we will just have ourselfs to blame due to arrgoence. Man is made to destroy himself. Its sad but true.

 

[LogicChristian]

Meh it will happen again. Mass war will happen in the future, and we will just have ourselfs to blame due to arrgoence. Man is made to destroy himself. Its sad but true.

I have quite a bit of hope for the future considering the fact that both the number and yield of nuclear weapons has decreased drastically from the 1970s. If the world didn't destroy itself with 70,000 nuclear weapons ready to go at a moments notice, it's a lot less likely to destroy itself with 20,000 active warheads that are de-targeted.

 

[Balko]

Even then there was a lot more tension. Plus in order to truly destroy humanity, you'd have to nuke the congo, zimbabwe, thailand, indonesia, micronesia, and basically a whole bunch of countries that don't really have any major problems with anyone.

Why would anyone nuke zimbabwe?

EDIT: oh, let me make sure to add this. A buttload more money goes to anti-missile defence systems than to nuclear ICBMs. If we know a nukes coming at us, most countries don't sit on their hands.

 

[RichardE]

No nukes all together would be nice. And it doesnt matter if England are replacing the nukes or getting new ones. 25 Billion is still a waste, I'm not afraid personally, death doesnt bother me, but it bothers me that our governments act so caring while all they do is lie and so many fail to see that. If we went to nuke war today they would be down in command bunkers, safe and sound while the so called little people have to deal with it. Idiots in suits. At least I smile in the fact that I know the public will always be stronger then thier govenments. Iraq soon to be iran, this has already angered millions, go on blair, keep on annoying youre public. In the end, it is the people who decide.

 

[LogicChristian]

No nukes all together would be nice. And it doesnt matter if England are replacing the nukes or getting new ones. 25 Billion is still a waste, I'm not afraid personally, death doesnt bother me, but it bothers me that our governments act so caring while all they do is lie and so many fail to see that. If we went to nuke war today they would be down in command bunkers, safe and sound while the so called little people have to deal with it. Idiots in suits. At least I smile in the fact that I know the public will always be stronger then thier govenments. Iraq soon to be iran, this has already angered millions, go on blair, keep on annoying youre public. In the end, it is the people who decide.

If you feel 25 billion pounds is a waste of money so be it. It's your right to have that opinion. I simply feel that 25 billion being spent by 2024 is a steal in national security terms when Britain could be spending a whole lot more on conventional programs (expanding the CVF program for instance.) Britain has been reducing its total number of warheads and delivery systems for well over a decade. In 1998, the UK ended nuclear weapons sharing with the US, and since it has been reducing the number of warheads on each Trident submarine in the fleet.

Also, if you do some checking around, this 25 billion isn't going to be spent tomorrow. The MoD doesn't plan on having to replace the Trident D-5 missiles in service on the Vanguard class submarines until 2024.

As for nuclear weapons being eradicated, they can't be. As long as humanity has the knowhow to build them, there will be nations that want to reduce defense expenditures by relying on them, and there will be nations that want them for aggressive military gains, and nations that want to defend themselves from the aggressive ones.

 

[JamesD]

How can it be justified.

Deterrence theory a la Hermann Kahn's On Thermonuclear War.

 

[CCGirl]

This is very sad and you have every right to be opposed to this lunacy! Of course the money should be spent on the citizens! PM Harper is planning on spending another 15$billion more on our military, not supported by most Canadians either!

 

[JamesD]

This is very sad and you have every right to be opposed to this lunacy! Of course the money should be spent on the citizens! PM Harper is planning on spending another 15$billion more on our military, not supported by most Canadians either!

Why don't all the North Americans and Europeans just abolish our militaries!? I'm sure the North Koreans, Iranians, and all other such people wouldn't take advantage of our weakness. We could just invite them to smoke a bowl with us!

 

[RichardE]

The fact is i neither like conventional weapons. I mean weather its nuke or conventional I still wouldn’t want to be hurt by either. These so called countries that want to harm us, I haven’t actually seem them attack us, I’ve only seen US threaten them and invade THIER countries. And please don’t quote me on terrorists, they are a invisible foe. I really don’t care weather the 25 billion is today or over 20 years, it is still 25 billion. When we talk about national defence and keeping freedom, I just don’t see us doing any defending but attacking, its sad and these nukes will serve an evil purpose, no good can come from this.

All this nonsense about defence, the USA and UK are not defending anything but offending other countries. That’s the strangest defence I’ve ever seen. I don’t believe our governments have that much of a problem using these weapons, conventional or not.