UK Cuts Nuclear Deterrent

[Michael]

Political grandstanding is tiresome, but normally fairly harmless.

Political grandstanding involving nuclear weapons is reprehensible and Gordon Brown is an idiot for not noticing the difference (and trying to pander to all sides similtaneously).

LONDON - Britain is prepared to scale back its nuclear capability as part of global disarmament efforts, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said September 23 ahead of an address to the U.N. General Assembly.

He told BBC radio that Britain was prepared to reduce the number of submarines that can launch nuclear missiles, but said there were no plans to cut the number of warheads.

Source (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4290375&c=EUR&s=SEA)

Budget-cutting exercises driven by domestic political considerations do not represent a credible policy of nuclear weapons reduction. That's just trying to make a 'silk purse out of a sow's ear'.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, Britain is dangerously close to completely falling off the bandwagon. Three SSBN's is NOT a credible nuclear deterrent and Gordon Brown looks like an idiot for saying it is.

Indeed, few issues are as loaded with self-serving bullshit arguments as nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. Britain is just adding her contribution to the muddle.

Britain ought to 'piss or get off the pot'. Either Britain is going to maintain a functional nuclear deterrent, or it is not. Claiming to do one while claiming to be doing the other is just silly. Fact is, Brown is doing neither - he's not really reducing nuclear weapons and he's not maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.

I don't want to pick on Brown too much though - every country that has nuke weapons plays the same kind of propaganda games loaded with lies. They all say they are opposed to nuclear proliferation while they engage in nuclear proliferation - or extended trade relationships with known violators.

There is no such thing as "nuclear non-proliferation" at all. That's just the name for a hypocritical and self-serving private club of western powers that seeks to maintain a monopoly on world power and to attack their political enemies.

[Zarquon]

Political grandstanding is tiresome, but normally fairly harmless.

Political grandstanding involving nuclear weapons is reprehensible and Gordon Brown is an idiot for not noticing the difference (and trying to pander to all sides similtaneously).



Source (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4290375&c=EUR&s=SEA)

Budget-cutting exercises driven by domestic political considerations do not represent a credible policy of nuclear weapons reduction. That's just trying to make a 'silk purse out of a sow's ear'.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, Britain is dangerously close to completely falling off the bandwagon. Three SSBN's is NOT a credible nuclear deterrent and Gordon Brown looks like an idiot for saying it is.

Indeed, few issues are as loaded with self-serving bullshit arguments as nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. Britain is just adding her contribution to the muddle.

Britain ought to 'piss or get off the pot'. Either Britain is going to maintain a functional nuclear deterrent, or it is not. Claiming to do one while claiming to be doing the other is just silly. Fact is, Brown is doing neither - he's not really reducing nuclear weapons and he's not maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.

I don't want to pick on Brown too much though - every country that has nuke weapons plays the same kind of propaganda games loaded with lies. They all say they are opposed to nuclear proliferation while they engage in nuclear proliferation - or extended trade relationships with known violators.

There is no such thing as "nuclear non-proliferation" at all. That's just the name for a hypocritical and self-serving private club of western powers that seeks to maintain a monopoly on world power and to attack their political enemies.
Isn't a nuclear deterrent more about perception than reality?
For instance doubts have been raised about the success of India's thermonuclear tests, and I doubt Pakistan has much of a stockpile, whereas Israel must have loads but wouldn't comment [or is it precisely what they want us (and Iran) to believe:sneaky:].
Of course, its a stupid move, but going by Brown's thinking- isn't Britain going to be defended by the US in case of such an incident or even the credible threat of one?
Wouldn't it then make sense to cut expenditure where it can be cut and make a great show of 'reducing arsenal?
I don't know about you, but Obama seems awfully determined to stop proliferation, and the dropping of the European missile shield defense may have been an overture to Russia for getting its help on this issue and with Iran.

[Michael]

Isn't a nuclear deterrent more about perception than reality?
It is. And three SSBN's isn't enough to do it 7/24/365. One needs four minimum. If the deterrent isn't physically present, it isn't likely to create a perception of effectiveness.

Keep in mind that the key players here are geopolitical 'players' not average people on the street. They are quite likely to understand the significance of only three SSBN's.

For instance doubts have been raised about the success of India's thermonuclear tests, and I doubt Pakistan has much of a stockpile, whereas Israel must have loads but wouldn't comment [or is it precisely what they want us (and Iran) to believe :sneaky:].
Of course, its a stupid move, but going by Brown's thinking- isn't Britain going to be defended by the US in case of such an incident or even the credible threat of one?
Wouldn't it then make sense to cut expenditure where it can be cut and make a great show of 'reducing arsenal?
I don't know about you, but Obama seems awfully determined to stop proliferation, and the dropping of the European missile shield defense may have been an overture to Russia for getting its help on this issue and with Iran.
I agree it would make a whole lot MORE sense to go all the way and eliminate UK's claim of an independent nuclear deterrent. There's some political mileage in that action.

But cutting down to the point of eliminating the actual deterrent and at the same time, still holding (and paying for) these weapons is just silly - halfway disarmed but still halfway armed. That kind of comprimise satisfies no one.