Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
we don't actually own them. We lease them from the US.
We own the subs, we own the bombs, we lease the missiles.
John Paul was a wonderful champion for peace and an end to violence, war and weapons. During his visit to these shores in 1982, he pleaded for peace at Coventry: Today, the scale and the horror of modern warfare - whether nuclear or not - makes it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations. War should belong to the tragic past, to history; it should find no place on humanity's agenda for the future.His successor Pope Benedict XVI has already made clear his own unequivocal call for Britain and all other nuclear powers to give up these weapons of war. Let me quote something from that wonderful message:What can be said about those governments which count on nuclear arms as a means of ensuring the security of their countries? this point of view is not only baneful but also completely fallacious. In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims. The truth of peace requires that all agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions, and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament. The resources which would be saved could then be employed in projects of development capable of benefiting all their people, especially the poor.[FONT="]
[/FONT]A particular Scottish response:We here in Britain are in a marvellous position to take concrete steps towards making real this demand from the Holy Father. And we here in Scotland have a duty to lead the way in campaigning for change, because we have the shameful task of housing these horrific weapons.With the Trident nuclear weapon system fast becoming obsolete, and the debate concerning its replacement promised by our government, now is the time for all men and women of Easter faith, men and women of good will, men and women of peace, to raise our voices. Enter this debate and demand that these weapons of mass destruction be replaced, but not with more weapons. Rather, replace Trident, as the Holy Father has said, with projects that bring life to the poor.I know first hand what the peaceful diversion of the vast sums of money in our military budget could accomplish. Earlier this year I was in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan. I will never forget the ramshackle homes in the vast Internally Displaced Peoples camps in the desert nor people like William, Magdalena and their children, Mary, Daniel and Marco, eking out an existence in their ramshackle home on less than £1.50 per day.Two years ago, on the 10th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, I was again in Africa and saw for myself what even small sums of money can achieve in healing, in reconciliation, in building a future of hope. Homes and hearts were being restored and help was being given to men like Father Alphonsus who pointed to a pile of skulls in a genocide site in a bombed out church, indicating that the remains of his father, mother and five of his family could be there.We help such people through our giving but how much more help could there be if only a fraction spent on nuclear weapons could be saved. To replace the Trident Nuclear System is estimated to cost £20 billion pounds and the running and maintenance cost is estimated to be around the same. Yes what help could be given at home by way of healthcare, schools, hospitals and the basic necessities for those who are in need if we had that money at our disposal. And the sum is more than the much advertised amount of debt relief announced at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles last year. Britain alone will be spending more on nuclear arms than what 18 of the worlds poorest countries are getting together in debt cancellation.
The nuclear arms race has been ongoing for decades. If the members of the permanent security council in the UN do not take action themselves in declaring that they are willing and able to gradually "get rid" of their nuclear arsenal, it will be very difficult to envisage other countries from ever doing the same. For instance, how can you expect countries such as Pakistan and India who are outside the UN permanent security council to start getting rid of their nuclear weapons when the countries who are in the permanent security council still hold on to theirs with great interest and great cost to international security? It simply wouldn't make sense for countries with less bargaining power to start with were to get rid of such a massive plus as a nuclear arsenal! If anything, India is acquiring more and more bargaining power by virtue of its nuclear arsenal. So to destroy them would be political sucicide on a global scale for India. The same process that India began over a decade ago is now underway in Iran to some extent and well underway in North Korea.I think that as long as we ourselves have nuclear weapons we have absolutely no credibility in trying to persuade other countries not to have them. We know that using them is out of the question, so does everyone else, so why not lead the way in getting rid of them.
I dont think it will do any good if just one or two leading nations from random corners of the globe decide to start the nuclear disarmament race. It has to be a gradual process which starts at the highest and most effective level that we know was designed in theory to safeguard the world - The UN.
Yes the UK is a member of the permanent security council. So you are correct.I agree that this is a difficult problem to resolve, but I don't see a way around it without some countries making the first move. By all means get the UN to lead the way, but in this country we are having this debate now, the action has to be taken in the next decade. Why spend £25 billion if all along we are aiming to make that investment redundant? I don't think our taking action now rules out the UN route. If anything it may bring more pressure to bear.
In this day and age, Trident is not a "nuclear deterrent." Quite simply, it didn't deter the terrorists who attacked London on 7/7, and it won't deter future terrorists.Its a difficult question but we need to have a nuclear deterrent, political leverage and deterrent. To leave ourselves a sitting duck would be ridiculous, we would have to rely on the Americans even more! It is also not just 'our' deterrent, it is part of NATO's defence strategy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?