Well, so much for nuclear non-proliferation.

[Atheus]

Just confirmed on the 6 o'clock news - we (the UK) will be building a new generation of nuclear submarines, complete with ballistic missiles, to replace the cold war era Trident submarine-launched system. Should be up on major news sites shortly.

There has been talk of this for a while, and it's popped up in the odd political speech, but I didn't expect a confirmation so soon... the system doesn't even reach the end of its recommended lifespan for another decade or so. They must have been planning this for a while, unknown to the public.

I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're building new weapons ourselves?

/edit: removed reference to NPT as apparently it does _not_ specifically prevent the development of new weapon systems.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just confirmed on the 6 o'clock news - we (the UK) will be building a new generation of nuclear submarines, complete with ballistic missiles, to replace the cold war era Trident submarine-launched system. Should be up on major news sites shortly.

There has been talk of this for a while, and it's popped up in the odd political speech, but I didn't expect a confirmation so soon... the system doesn't even reach the end of its recommended lifespan for another decade or so. They must have been planning this for a while, unknown to the public, and completely in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're violating the same treaties ourselves?

Do you understand what proliferation means? Or what treaties your government signed? Read more. Post less.

 

[Al Neri]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<regardless P&N is thatway

 

[FoBoT]

some quick reading leads me to think the NPT will be dead soon, so it'll be a moot ( or moose if you are in canada) point

 

[j00fek]

<-------------------------------------P&N

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Savij
Do you understand what proliferation means? Or what treaties your government signed? Read more. Post less.

Yes I know what proliferation means. I believe there is a disarmament clause in the treaty which precludes development of new weapons systems.

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<regardless P&N is thatway

I hate P&N... but if you insist.

 

[FoBoT]

Second pillar: disarmament
Article VI and the preamble indicate that the NWS parties pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles; Article VI also calls for "...a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." This formal obligation has never been adhered to by the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states. Many proposals for a complete and universal disarmament tabled at the Conference on Disarmament over the past 3 decades have been rejected under one pretext or the other. The failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to comply with their disarmament obligations, and the unconditional indefinite extension of the NPT, has left a simmering discontent among many signatories of the NPT, and a justification for the non-signatories to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're violating the same treaties ourselves?

It'd very simple. We (as in the UK, France, the US, etc) are larger, more responsible governments. We are not likely to topple and we have nothing to gain by launching a nuclear attack against another country.

North Korea and Iran aren't especially stable and would likely use and/or sell nuclear weapons as soon as they get them.

 

[George P Burdell]

P&N

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Savij
Do you understand what proliferation means? Or what treaties your government signed? Read more. Post less.

Yes I know what proliferation means. I believe there is a disarmament clause in the treaty which precludes development of new weapons systems.

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<regardless P&N is thatway

I hate P&N... but if you insist.

It does not place an end to development. It's a general agreement that we should at some point, when it's convenient, begin to reduce the number of weapons. Chances are the number of weapons is going to remain the same. The old subs and weapons will be decommissioned and newer (safer control systems, possibly smaller yield, more accurate delivery systems) ones will be put into service.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're violating the same treaties ourselves?

It'd very simple. We (as in the UK, France, the US, etc) are larger, more responsible governments. We are not likely to topple and we have nothing to gain by launching a nuclear attack against another country.

North Korea and Iran aren't especially stable and would likely use and/or sell nuclear weapons as soon as they get them.

Or they could just want them for self-defence, or they could just want to use them as a bargaining chip.

 

[chambersc]

Nuclear treaties are for quitters.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just confirmed on the 6 o'clock news - we (the UK) will be building a new generation of nuclear submarines, complete with ballistic missiles, to replace the cold war era Trident submarine-launched system. Should be up on major news sites shortly.

Cool, do I get one? I should at least get to choose a target cos I paid all my taxes 🙂

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: mugs
Or they could just want them for self-defence, or they could just want to use them as a bargaining chip.

Either way, it doesn't make sense for us to allow them to have them.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Savij
Do you understand what proliferation means? Or what treaties your government signed? Read more. Post less.

Yes I know what proliferation means. I believe there is a disarmament clause in the treaty which precludes development of new weapons systems.

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<regardless P&N is thatway

I hate P&N... but if you insist.

I suggest you read the NNPT before you post another thread.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're violating the same treaties ourselves?

It'd very simple. We (as in the UK, France, the US, etc) are larger, more responsible governments. We are not likely to topple and we have nothing to gain by launching a nuclear attack against another country.

North Korea and Iran aren't especially stable and would likely use and/or sell nuclear weapons as soon as they get them.

Or they could just want them for self-defence, or they could just want to use them as a bargaining chip.

Also, we take the moral high ground because we don't abuse/starve our citizens. I'm sure The North Korean or Iranian Government would gladly sacrifice a good portion of its population (if it hasn't already) to obtain a single working ICBM.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: So
I suggest you read the NNPT before you post another thread.

I'm not really interested enough in the subject to read the whole treaty. I was under the impression it prevents signatories from developing new weapons, but even if it does not, my general sentiments remain the same.

I'll just take your word for it and edit the post.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're violating the same treaties ourselves?

It'd very simple. We (as in the UK, France, the US, etc) are larger, more responsible governments. We are not likely to topple and we have nothing to gain by launching a nuclear attack against another country.

North Korea and Iran aren't especially stable and would likely use and/or sell nuclear weapons as soon as they get them.

Try and think of it from an Iranian's perspective. Why should a country who started a war in a neighboring country to yours be able to have nukes while you can't? Because they are willing to use weapons they can have nukes?

 

[iamaelephant]

This is exceedingly sad news. However Americans have no right to criticize.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
Try and think of it from an Iranian's perspective. Why should a country who started a war in a neighboring country to yours be able to have nukes while you can't? Because they are willing to use weapons they can have nukes?

Why should they be able to? Because they can produce them and no one can stop them. There isn't some overriding balancing force in the world that determines what everyone should be able to have, it's simply how much your country can do before someone puts a stop to it.

I'm sorry that life in Iran isn't as free and prosperous as it is here, and I'm sorry that they aren't one of the world powers, but I'm not going to say that we should let them have nuclear weapons so that their citizens can feel equal. To be quite honest, I really don't care about Iran or the Iranians. If I spent my time worrying about everyone who had less than I do, I wouldn't be able to enjoy what I had.

Plus, as I said before, I think that Iran would quickly sell or give away nuclear weapons if it had them. Quite possibly to people who would have no qualms at all about using them on the United States or its allies.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
This is exceedingly sad news. However Americans have no right to criticize.

How is this sad news? They've got aging submarines that are probably becoming dangerous to operate, so they build new ones to replace them. Jobs are created, new research is done and technologies are developed that will eventually find their way into everyday life, the amount of nukes is not altered in any meaningful way, they've just got better and more sophisticated delivery systems.

Remember, most of the money spent goes to the subs, not the nukes.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
This is exceedingly sad news. However Americans have no right to criticize.

How is this sad news? They've got aging submarines that are probably becoming dangerous to operate, so they build new ones to replace them. Jobs are created, new research is done and technologies are developed that will eventually find their way into everyday life, the amount of nukes is not altered in any meaningful way, they've just got better and more sophisticated delivery systems.

Remember, most of the money spent goes to the subs, not the nukes.

I think he means that it is sad that Britain feels the need to build new subs. While new jobs and technology are nice, more funding for education would probably pay off better for the country.

 

[FoBoT]

submarines are awesome

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't believe western nations should give up their nukes at this point, and perhaps that means the old systems will need to be upgraded, but how can we take the moral high ground with North Korea and Iran when we're violating the same treaties ourselves?

It'd very simple. We (as in the UK, France, the US, etc) are larger, more responsible governments. We are not likely to topple and we have nothing to gain by launching a nuclear attack against another country.

North Korea and Iran aren't especially stable and would likely use and/or sell nuclear weapons as soon as they get them.

According to whom. You? If you have nothing to gain then why'd you collect and build nuclear arms. Didn't Rumsfeld say that using nukes against Iraq was always an option?
Your whole argument there is contradictory except for the North Korea part.

 

[FoBoT]

all i know is i am glad i live in the country with the most nuclear weapons