Thanks to Curious Sam for bringing the vote today in the British Parliament on whether the UK should build new nuclear weapons. It does indeed seem pretty rotten for the UK to build a new generation of nuclear weapons just a few years after it helped to invade Iraq on the false premise that Iraq was trying to do the same thing.
Let me be fair, however, and point out the other side of the argument. British Defence Secretary Des Browne has said that if Britain does not build new nuclear weapons, it would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament.
You know, Des Brown has a point, but I think that there’s a way we can help with the problem of unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons by the UK. What if we here in the United States got our government to dismantle its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons too? That way, Britain’s disarmament wouldn’t be unilateral anymore.
I’m still missing the part where we need nuclear weapons in existence…
The only “reason” seems to be so that if we fail to stop people nuking us then we can take them down with us.
HareTrinity, this is an example of people who cannot seem to let go of their “Cold War” mind-set. Back then, they referred to it as “Mutually Assured Destruction”, also known by it’s VERY appropriate acronym, MAD. Since that there seem to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 Nuclear and Thermonuclear warheads currently in existence, I, too, have serious misgivings to the wisdom of a “new crop”. We already have the potential to turn the Earth into another asteroid belt with what we already have…instead of building more, we need to focus on getting rid of them…preferably by NOT detonating them. Still, we’d have Air Force Generals weeping that we are “taking their toys away”…Can’t have that, now can we?