A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left.
Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.
Pages
▼
Monday, October 09, 2006
North Korea claims to have tested nuke
Anyone still opposed to replacing Trident after this?
I suspect actually, that having or not having Trident would have no effect on the North Koreans whatsoever, and will have no effect on if they ever chose to us it. Not having it would, though, give us some small authority to offer any kind of opinion on the matter. Otherwise they are, like us, just another idiotic rogue state arming themselves for peace.
Whether they'd have pursued the programme if they hadn't been listed as part of the axis of evil, and seen that attacks on the axis of evil are reserved for states without weapons of mass destruction (Afghanistan and Iraq) is a different matter. No, if we wanted to hurry up proliferation around the world, we couldn't have pursued a more effective foreign policy.
Luke - we've never had and never will have an 'independent nuclear detterent'. This development should have no effect on anyone's views about renewing Trident. It is an irrelevence on the world stage. Viagara for the flag. Renew it if you want to waste billions on a tough image. Or don't if you've ever thought we were short of public money for doing other things. But don't pretend it has anything to do with foreign policy and diplomacy. It is - and always was - a fraud.
Spot on duncan. However, as Luke and hughes know, those inscrutable foreigners are not as moral as we are. They don't 'share our values' in the same way as the Israelis do, and they would have no hesitation in using their weapons of mass destruction against a country which provides absolutely no nuclear threat to them. By the way, has any country ever used a nuclear bomb against another country that didn't have nuclear weapons? If they had... I'm sure they wouldn't 'share our values'.
I think it's instructive that the only country ever to have suffered a nuclear attack - and perhaps the only country to feel that the developments of the last few days might actively threaten them - has steadfastly maintained an anti-nuclear philosophy. One might actually ask how countries such as Japan and Germany - that don't even pretend to have an independent deterrent - have managed to remain rich and unmolested for 50 plus years while unilateral disarmament would have apparently been a 'disaster' for the UK.
One might further ask how groups as diverse as the Mujahadeen, Hizbollah, the Ba'athists and the Al Qa'eda network have managed to be so singularly undeterred by nuclear weapons in the US, the UK, the USSR and Israel over the years - variously defying ultimatums, launching raids and attacks, etc. against a basket of nuclear states.
Luke's implication that Trident is now protecting us from Kim Jong Il get gored on the horns of a dilemma.
Viz: Either Kim is totally mad, in which case he would fire a nuke at us irrespective of whether we would nuke him back; or he is not totally mad, in which case he wouldn't use a nuke as a first strike.
Either way Trident is not protecting us: in the first case we get nuked anyway; in the second we don't get nuked but not because of Trident.
Ah but if we'd abandoned Trident surely those naughty North Koreans would have swiftly dumped their nuclear programme wouldn't they? Or not ...
ReplyDeleteI suspect actually, that having or not having Trident would have no effect on the North Koreans whatsoever, and will have no effect on if they ever chose to us it. Not having it would, though, give us some small authority to offer any kind of opinion on the matter. Otherwise they are, like us, just another idiotic rogue state arming themselves for peace.
ReplyDeleteWhether they'd have pursued the programme if they hadn't been listed as part of the axis of evil, and seen that attacks on the axis of evil are reserved for states without weapons of mass destruction (Afghanistan and Iraq) is a different matter. No, if we wanted to hurry up proliferation around the world, we couldn't have pursued a more effective foreign policy.
Luke - we've never had and never will have an 'independent nuclear detterent'. This development should have no effect on anyone's views about renewing Trident. It is an irrelevence on the world stage. Viagara for the flag. Renew it if you want to waste billions on a tough image. Or don't if you've ever thought we were short of public money for doing other things. But don't pretend it has anything to do with foreign policy and diplomacy. It is - and always was - a fraud.
Spot on duncan. However, as Luke and hughes know, those inscrutable foreigners are not as moral as we are. They don't 'share our values' in the same way as the Israelis do, and they would have no hesitation in using their weapons of mass destruction against a country which provides absolutely no nuclear threat to them. By the way, has any country ever used a nuclear bomb against another country that didn't have nuclear weapons? If they had... I'm sure they wouldn't 'share our values'.
ReplyDeleteI think it's instructive that the only country ever to have suffered a nuclear attack - and perhaps the only country to feel that the developments of the last few days might actively threaten them - has steadfastly maintained an anti-nuclear philosophy. One might actually ask how countries such as Japan and Germany - that don't even pretend to have an independent deterrent - have managed to remain rich and unmolested for 50 plus years while unilateral disarmament would have apparently been a 'disaster' for the UK.
ReplyDeleteOne might further ask how groups as diverse as the Mujahadeen, Hizbollah, the Ba'athists and the Al Qa'eda network have managed to be so singularly undeterred by nuclear weapons in the US, the UK, the USSR and Israel over the years - variously defying ultimatums, launching raids and attacks, etc. against a basket of nuclear states.
Under what circumstances would the UK use its nuclear weaponry before the US?
ReplyDeleteLuke's implication that Trident is now protecting us from Kim Jong Il get gored on the horns of a dilemma.
ReplyDeleteViz: Either Kim is totally mad, in which case he would fire a nuke at us irrespective of whether we would nuke him back; or he is not totally mad, in which case he wouldn't use a nuke as a first strike.
Either way Trident is not protecting us: in the first case we get nuked anyway; in the second we don't get nuked but not because of Trident.