Nuclear disarmament?

[Inter Me Nan]

Save them for the big bollock asteroid that's bound to be on the way sooner or later

They says bad news comes in three's!

 

[Bill Walker]

I'd feel a whole lot better if we had them down under.

 

[JRockBlues]

Unfortunately once something like this has been let out of the bag there's no going back. Someone, somewhere will always have access to these horribly destructive weapons so it's probably best to keep some on what we perceive to be the right side to hopefully act as a deterrent against their use.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Unfortunately once something like this has been let out of the bag there's no going back. Someone, somewhere will always have access to these horribly destructive weapons so it's probably best to keep some on what we perceive to be the right side to hopefully act as a deterrent against their use.

Agree entirely.

I am still curious not for the sake of argument but genuine interest what the pro disarmament people think right now. Do the SNP and many Labour supporters in Scotland still advocate to deneuclearise?

 

[idahoblues]

I'd feel a whole lot better if we had them down under.

I’ll see if we can drop some off

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I'd like to ask a genuine question to the likes of CND supporters and the SNP etc....

In these very uncertain and troubled times:

Do you feel in any way reassured that we have a semblance of a defence capability albeit through the ownership of Nuclear weapons or would you still rather we unilaterally get rid of them and lay ourselves open to the threats of Putin and his like?

Genuine question, has anyone changed their views on this very current topic?

Unilateral disarmament is an invitation for Russia/China/North Korea, etc., to reduce those that oppose them to smoldering, radioactive ash. The world is full of bullies with big sticks - best keep your own stick handy.

 

[Octavian]

If there was no nukes Putins army would already be in bits, lucky bastard.

It really would be WW3 without them as I think China may have backed Russia.

I think overall they actually do more good… until someone actually uses one and then it’s very very bad.

We’re never getting invaded with them.

 

[Coatigan]

Pretty good question, and one this episode had me asking myself anyway.

I have in principle been and think I still am, against Trident/nuclear weapons. Unlinked to 'party' politcs or other convictions.

I am open to changing my mind, and seeing a side that makes me rethink. This whole situation certainly comes close.

Ultimately, just not enough, yet. Some thoughts below.

- Is it really a deterrant, or actually a bit of a target. Would say Russia, if drawn into a nuclear conflict not target places With nuclear capacity first, over places without.

- If Ukraine had nukes, or hadnt given up its share, would this invasion been less likely? I honestly doubt it, if anything, Putin would have brought his into the equation much sooner. Ukraine woud maybe have been able to posture, but it would have escalated quicker, and the line between good guy bad guy blurred, making propoanda much less black and white

- Can the money spent on it be put to better uses. Abdolutely.


I remain on the 'not for me' side on Trident. If that means less aggression or presence in conflicts at a world stage, so be it.

 

[bluemoon32]

I'd feel a whole lot better if we had them down under.

I'll let Putin know, it's one way to repair world opinion on himself..

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Unfortunately once something like this has been let out of the bag there's no going back.

Like VAR!