A Blair-Fox alliance is needed for Trident replacement

According to this morning's Independent, Tony Blair will have to rely upon Tory votes to secure parliamentary support for his plans to replace Trident.  A poll by Communicate Research for the newspaper found that 36% of Labour MPs believed that "the international security outlook makes a UK nuclear deterrent unnecessary."  The Independent has also been analysing recent parliamentary motions:

"63 Labour MPs have signed parliamentary motions calling on the Government not to replace Trident, and many more have signed motions calling for a full debate about Britain's nuclear deterrent before the vote. Fifty-three Labour backbenchers signed a motion in February warning that replacing Trident would breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while 55 signed another motion last year calling on ministers to "abandon" any plan to replace the missile system."

Trident will be another important test of David Cameron's willingness to act in bipartisan ways in the national interest.  In the last year he delivered passage of Tony Blair's education reforms after large-scale opposition from Labour MPs had promised to derail them.  Tory strategy director Steve Hilton is reported to be cautious about the issue, however.  He vetoed a speech by Liam Fox on the subject after a focus group test found that voters were reminded of the Thatcher era.  Dr Fox is a supporter of replacing Trident but the last Conservative Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, is opposed.

Related link: It's time to put Missile Defence back on the agenda

Comments

[ToMTom]

These Labour MPs want us to be protected by the French nuclear Deterrent............I see Chirac has announced the upgrade there, the new submarine missiles are being tested and the new boat La Terrible has been authorised.

So we can shelter under the French nuclear deterrent and expand our Army to 500.000 men as we spent to build up conventional forces................but wait.........The left don't want us to spend on conventional forces either.

This is the Party whose 1935 Manifesto wanted to disband the RAF.

The Government has a terrible responsibility for the present international situation. It did nothing to check the aggression of Japan in the Far East, and thus seriously discredited the League of Nations and undermined the Collective Peace System.

It has wrecked the Disarmament Conference by resisting all the constructive proposals made by other States. As regards air armaments, in particular, Lord Londondery has boasted that he succeeded, though with great difficulty, in preventing an agreement for the complete abolition of all national air forces.

We should build new boats and new warheads just as Neville Chamberlain ignored Labour in 1935 and went ahead as Chancellor to fund Dowding and new Hurricanes and Spitfires and funded Rolls-Royce to build the Merlin engine.

These Labour MPs proposed letting party members vote...............this is OUR country so hold a General Election on Trident and let the public decide or else don't play politics with national defence

[Og]

"Tory strategy director Steve Hilton is reported to be cautious about the issue, however".

So what? This is a question of national security and good faith with our allies in NATO. What Hilton thinks, or for that matter the retired-to-the-media pantomime dame Portillo, is a matter of supreme unimportance.

[Mark Fulford]

Trident will be another important test of David Cameron's willingness to act in bipartisan ways in the national interest.

The subtext being that Trident is in the national interest? Perhaps being less warlike is in the national interest...

[HF]

I heard from Ming on R4 today that an all party committee said we do not need to take a decision until 2014?

If it is true, then we should delay the decision and wait and see how the world and technology changes.

Why not aim to defeat the Govt on the issue that we do not need to rush into a decision?

Surely that is a conservative, cautious, approach?

Let Labour tear themselves apart in Blair's rush to drive this through before he goes.

[malcolm]

Absolutely Og. Our nuclear deterrent should be decided on the advice of the service chiefs depending on what strategy they are advising for our future defence. Politics and party political advantage should be way down the list of priorities .It is far too important a subject for that.
HF, I listened to a defence expert on the radio yesterday explaining quite persuasively that because of the number of hours that our submarines spend at sea (far longer than American boats) and the time it takes to build a replacement the decision needs to be taken now. Putting off decisions can lead to disastrous consequences as we have found with our aircraft carriers which currently have inadequate air defences as a result of MOD procrastination.

[Simon Chapman]

Malcolm's right. It will be astonishing, and profoundly damaging, if the Conservative Party does not come out with unequivocal support for a Trident replacement.

[TomTom]

France

http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/frnukes.html

Sea-Based Strategic Weapons

L'Inflexible (SNLE M4) SSBN
Le Triomphant SSBN (SNLE-NG)
M-4 SLBM
M-45 SLBM

Air-Based Strategic Weapons

Mirage 2000N
Super Etendard
ASMPSRAM

[tired and emotional]

I can't believe we are even discussing playing politics with this decision. Any one who believes that the security situation around the world is benign is asleep at the wheel. We have a nuclear N Korea, a nuclear arms race about to start in the Middle East and an increasingly aggressive and totalitarian Russia and China strutting around. God knows Chavez would love the bomb - give his alliance with Iran he stands a good chance of getting it. We should not only be renewing Trident now but should be considering expanding the programme.

Getting elected is less important than this decision.

[david]

TomTom
That was the same Neville Chamberlain who in 1938, (despite protests from the Navy) handed the Treaty ports of Castletown and Lough Swilly back to Eire. A decision which cost the lives of hunderds perhaps even thousands of British seamen and reduced our anti U-boat capabilty in the crucial Battle of the Atlantic.

[Adam]

Of course this is political - how you think the West's relationship with China, for example, will play out over the next 30 years is a political question.

We should not become blinded into thinking the decision is between Trident and nothing. We could have no Trident and spend the money on education/health/tax cuts etc.. We could have no Trident and spend the money equipping and expanding our conventional forces (God knows they need it). We could have a full replacement of Trident. We could have a scaled-down replacement of Trident and spend the money saved on conventional forces/health/tax cuts/whatever.

[TomTom]

TomTom
That was the same Neville Chamberlain who in 1938, (despite protests from the Navy) handed the Treaty ports of Castletown and Lough Swilly back to Eire.

I shall praise Neville Chamberlain for the good things he did.............I suggest you do the same.............we might both overlock his predecessor as Conservative Chancellor of The Exchequer who stopped work on the fortifications at Singapore..............I am sure Mr Churchill regretted his earlier decision when Percival surrendered to the Japanese.

[Yet Another Anon]

It is unfortunate that the new plan reduces the number of warheads stockpiled and the number of nuclear submarines from 4 to 3, the UK should be expanding it's nuclear strikeforce and beginning work on the development of Hafnium devices (merely emit an initial Gamma Ray blast with no fallout and yet equivalent explosive power to nuclear weapons and lower yields than 0.2kt and as such they could be used in place of conventional weapons in many cases as they would take up less space - a 50mt Hafnium weapon could have vapourised Tora Bora and the mountains around but left the area still occupiable after) as the Pentagon are doing.

[Yet Another Anon]

This is the Party whose 1935 Manifesto wanted to disband the RAF
Both parties have a chequered past on Defence, in 1935 the Labour Party had just fragmented with most joining the National Government, George Lansbury who was a committed pacifist had then taken over, when Clement Attlee took over he shifted Labour's policies and in the 1940's was largely responsible for introducing nuclear capability into Britain's forces, at the turn of the 1950's during the Korean War the Labour government also undertook a huge expansion of the military increasing Defence Spending to 10% of GDP, the incoming Conservative government cut that back though, then under Harold Wilson Labour again saw defence as less of a priority and cut it back, Jim Callaghan increased Defence Spending again and it was 8% of GDP at the time the Conservatives came to power, Margaret Thatcher then talked more about the importance of Defence than any other PM since Winston Churchill and yet presided over year on year slashing of the budget to the point that by the Gulf War it was only 4.5% of GDP and still falling, the Major administration halved that proportion again and it is still falling although there have been some real terms increases in the last few years - on the other hand countries such as France, Turkey and the USA realising the vital importance of Defence have to some extent been reversing cuts made in the 1990's, France now spends far more on Defence than the UK does and has a far more credible military.

[Daniel VA]

Trident is little more than a misty-eyed anachronism harking back to a bygone era of international insecurity when Britain's pretensions to be a global power weren't quite so ridiculous.

Instead of wasting billions of pounds of OUR money slapping on a pair of rose-tinted nuclear glasses so Britain can play at being the world's policeman, how about giving our armed forces the investment they need to equip and train themselves properly to deal with the real threats and issues of the 21st century?

[concerned]

"Tory strategy director Steve Hilton is reported to be cautious about the issue, however."

Shut up, Steve. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Yet Another Anon]

Instead of wasting billions of pounds of OUR money slapping on a pair of rose-tinted nuclear glasses so Britain can play at being the world's policeman, how about giving our armed forces the investment they need to equip and train themselves properly to deal with the real threats and issues of the 21st century?
These include threats from nuclear states and states with large conventional firepower - who knows what states will have nuclear weapons next, if China, USA or Russia ever went up against the UK then the UK might need to use it's nuclear weapons to stop a conventional attack of a scale that the UK could not stop with conventional weapons, what about countries such as Turkey or Indonesia, Iran - all of these have massive conventional capability which could well expand hugely in coming years, in war defeat is unacceptable.

[Esbonio]

Yeah right, Daniel VA. Indeed why not abandon our armed forces entirely. After all we don't protect our borders so why bother with armed forces.

[Daniel VA]

"These include threats from nuclear states and states with large conventional firepower - who knows what states will have nuclear weapons next, if China, USA or Russia ever went up against the UK then the UK might need to use it's nuclear weapons to stop a conventional attack of a scale that the UK could not stop with conventional weapons, what about countries such as Turkey or Indonesia, Iran - all of these have massive conventional capability which could well expand hugely in coming years, in war defeat is unacceptable."

But having used that argument to justify arming ourselves with a nuclear 'deterrent', where do you draw the line with other countries who offer the same argument? Should Germany be allowed a nuclear 'deterrent'? Poland? Egypt? Syria?

[Mark Fulford]

Indeed why not abandon our armed forces entirely.

Because that would be totally ridiculous and is the exact opposite of Daniel's argument.

How do we give us and our friends the unique right to own nuclear weapons. Have we shown ourselves to be less warlike than other nations? Or is it that our wars are always better justified than others?

Our possession of nuclear weapons justifies other states to acquire them. With an increasing number of nuclear weapons in permanent readiness, it becomes inevitable that one will be fired inadvertently.

Instead of replacing Trident we should be demonstrating that we have the courage to disarm.

[malcolm]

The days when Britain was an empire builder or even a world policeman have as the events in Iraq have so painfully proved (where we are unable to move at all without the say so of the US) are over. BUT I think it would be the height of irresponsibility to abandon our deterrent at this time and alert both friend and foe to the fact that we are no longer serious about our own defence.
Remember the question over a Trident replacement does not cover the forseable future,it covers the completely unforceable next thirty years where energy security and the rise of new nuclear powers makes a MAD defence strategy the only game in town.
Having spent so much of the '80's in painful argument with CND and other assorted lefties I am suprised to be having similar arguments with fellow Conservatives.

[david]

It is very unlikely that any British government regardless of party will ever totally abandon nuclear weapons. The question therefore should be, what sort of nuclear option is best for the UK. The rigid Trident type system is no longer required. Cruise missiles able to be launched from sea, land or air would be a less expensive and more flexible system. Submarines, surface ships, aircraft could all provide launch platforms, the nuclear deterrent would therefore be shared out among the three services, firing from land also being an option. The next generation of cruise missiles promise greater accuracy, higher speeds, longer range. Cruise is also a much more flexible system, able to carry conventional as well as nuclear warheads.

[Esbonio]

Because Mark Fulford it is all a question of degree and I believe our nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our defence policy. David at 1500 makes some sense. A debate can be had about delivery systems. And of course because we have a nuclear does not mean we should not spend more on our conventional forces; as a Tory I believe we should increase defence spending in any event.

[Simon Chapman]

Mark Fulford,

Where, and how far, are you taking this? Is your position that we should have no nuclear capability once Trident becomes obsolete? Should we dis-arm, in nuclear terms, completely?

[George Hinton]

It is the duty of an opposition to oppose, and the question of our Trident nuclear update is a perfect oppotunity to have the government defeated by its own leftie extremists.
No co-operation, whatever NuLab propose has to be insufficient and inadequate.

[TomTom]

Yet Another Anon | December 04, 2006 at 11:55

Fascinating recitation of interwar history.............so what ? The simple fact is that had the electorate voted Labour in 1935 (and only 13 National Labour in 1931, 8 in 1935 with 154 Labour MPs in opposition).

Had the electorate gone for Labour's Manifesto the Battle of Britain could not have been fought and the world's most powerful airforce, the Luftwaffe would have been dominant.

It does not matter why Labour was cracked - it matters only that the Conservatives were not. There is niothing in Vladimir Putin's behaviour to indicate why my country should not have nuclear warheads facing in his direction, he certainly has ones pointing at us............and India is building nuclear submarines.

Or should Britain depend upon an EU deterrent in French hands ?

[Esbonio]

Malcom 1453

Well said.

As Santayama said, "Those who forget the past are comndemned to relive it." Even Heseltine understood the need for our deterrent.

[George Hinton]

The French are totally and utterly untrustworthy.
They have spent the past decades attempting to destabilise NATO and spreading the myth that it was the EU that kept the peace not NATO and US nuclear umbrella.
Unless this country is ruled by France our national interests have no convergence.

[George Hinton]

The French are totally and utterly untrustworthy.
They have spent the past decades attempting to destabilise NATO and spreading the myth that it was the EU that kept the peace not NATO and US nuclear umbrella.
Unless this country is ruled by France our national interests have no convergence.

[Mark Fulford]

Having spent so much of the '80's in painful argument with CND and other assorted lefties I am suprised to be having similar arguments with fellow Conservatives.

Malcolm, I don’t see this debate as being between left and right.

To my mind, left-wing policies are those where the state provides answers (and therefore takes a large degree of control) and right-wing policies are those where individuals provide answers (with the state possibly enabling the process, but maintaining a light touch). That is the bedrock of my Conservative beliefs.

National defence can only be provided by the state and therefore, if we’re going to label it left of right, it’s left by definition. High government spending is also a left wing thing. Funny then that us right-wingers are asking for more money to be spent on defence!

Twenty-five years ago I argued for a nuclear deterrent too. Possessing a nuclear deterrent was probably right then, but that doesn't make it necessarily right now. We have to look at the argument as it stands today, and I believe it has changed. The key differences are in potential targets and moral authority.

We could never WMD against a non-WMD country. Our list of potential targets is therefore quite small and, with political and geographical considerations, it becomes even smaller. In most cases, nuclear weapons are not viable to use.

We no longer have moral authority. Tony Blair and George Bush forgot that if you’re going to be a privileged nuclear power, you have to exercise your military power with great care and reserve. With a mis-directed knee-jerk we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and made wild threats to many others. In so doing we invited every country that feels threatened by us to enter the arms race.

Finally, the driver and timing behind this decision is political. Tony Blair is largely keeping his eyes on jobs in the British defence industry, but £25 billion would be more profitably spent on other industry sectors.

Is your position that we should have no nuclear capability once Trident becomes obsolete?

Simon, I wouldn’t go there in a single step but yes, unilateral disarmament is the direction I would be heading. Both directions are risky, but rearmament takes us inevitably towards a nuclear incident.

[Simon Chapman]

Mark,

Please could you be a bit more precise. If you wouldn't disarm unilaterally in one step, what do you say we should do now about replacing Trident. Either we replace it, or we don't. If we don't aren't we effectively disarming in one step? Or am I being too simple?

[Mark Fulford]

Please could you be a bit more precise.
I am 90% sure that replacing Trident would be the wrong thing to do at this time. Instead I would extend the lifetime of our existing Trident system but:

1. stand-down our nuclear forces;
2. remove the weapons from the subs;
3. commit to no first use and lobby other nuclear powers to do the same.

We should have been doing these three things much earlier but, by extending Trident’s life, it’s not too late. These steps are designed to reassure other states that our nuclear weapons are not a threat to them. From worldwide reaction to this policy we can decide whether we can then completely disarm.

[malcolm]

A few points MAark because I profoundly disagree with your last post. Left wing people have rarely considered our national defence a priority perhaps because the major threat to it has come from the communists. The Labour party did vote to abolish the RAF in 1937 when the threat was from Nazism 'though. MAD has for more than 50 years prevented anyone attacking Britain and there have been no nuclear weapons 'incidents' during that time. Why should this change?
We aren't looking at the position as it is today,we are developing an insurance policy for the next thirty years. Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what the situation will be then.
Surely, SURELY we do have the moral authority to defend our island and to ensure that anyone who thinks to attack us will be destroyed. We have as far as I'm aware never threatened anyone with a 'first strike' nuclear attack even when our troops overseas have been attacked, I don't see this policy changing.
Tony Blair is taking these decisions now because he has to, I'm sure he would much rather put things off until he has left office. There is as good an explanation as to why in todays Guardian of all places.No serious military commentator as far as I'm aware is arguing for us to do nothing.
Whether we need a deterrent as powerful as Trident is a moot point and I would certainly prefer it to be British built and controlled if possible but nevetheless a case for replacing Trident is unarguable for anyone with a serious interest for the defence of our country.

[Esbonio]

I find it abolutely staggering that Mark Fulford consider the invasion of Afghanistan "a mis-directed knee-jerk". If that was not justified, what was? I see little point arguing nuclear deterrence with him.

[Yet Another Anon]

In the past the Liberal Party was if anything more pacifist than Labour and in fact David Steel used annually to have major battles in Liberal Conferences to attempt to get them to agree to maintaining a nuclear deterrent, it was rather curious that the SDP joined with that bunch of hippies - interesting how the Liberal Democrats seem to be returning to type and Meinzes Campbell questioning the need to have an upgrade of the nuclear capability.

[Mark Fulford]

MAD has for more than 50 years prevented anyone attacking Britain and there have been no nuclear weapons 'incidents' during that time. Why should this change?

Because soon most countries will be technologically capable of manufacturing viable nuclear weapons. As more countries own more weapons, the chances of them being used rises. We will be hard pressed to prevent this from happening while we ourselves are guilty of proliferation.

Surely, SURELY we do have the moral authority to defend our island and to ensure that anyone who thinks to attack us will be destroyed.

Like every nation we have the moral authority to defend our land. But, until 2006, only 6 other nations felt the requirement for nuclear weapons. With the NPT we promised the other 186 that we would seek to disarm in the common interest. Why has that changed?

Our continued possession of nuclear weapons fuels a lowest common denominator race. Other nations are forced towards the lowest level to keep up… and the more we rattle our sabre, the more urgently they’ll feel the need.

I see little point arguing nuclear deterrence with him.

Esbonio, since we have neither wiped out the Taliban, nor found Osama bin Laden, nor broken al-Qaeda, nor reduced the heroin trade, I feel fairly justified in being critical of our war in Afghanistan. But whether I’m right or wrong on that, it’s a very poor argument to say that because somebody is partly wrong they are completely wrong. For the sake of argument, remove “Afghanistan” from what I wrote and tackle the rest.

[Yet Another Anon]

I wouldn’t go there in a single step but yes
What would you be waiting for, the fact is that there is a lot of messing about over the nuclear deterrent - I rather question how much many ministers and Prime Ministers have actually been committed to it, it is not merely a question of whether you are prepared to retain a deterrent but as David Owen, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan have all said at one time or another, which is whether there would be circumstances under which it would be considered neccessary to use it - I would like to hear politicians commit that if the integrity of the UK were threatened by an external attack or threat of one that would compromise it's independence that they would use nuclear weapons if that was the only guaranteed method of stopping such an attack.

[Daniel VA]

"BUT I think it would be the height of irresponsibility to abandon our deterrent at this time and alert both friend and foe to the fact that we are no longer serious about our own defence."

Malcolm, you know I have the utmost respect for your views, but again I have to ask where do we draw the line?

If having the nuclear 'deterrent' is necessary to be seen as 'serious about our own defence', then how can we possibly seek to restrain other states that are serious about their own defence?

Adopting an 'I'm alright Jack, up yours' attitude on this won't get us anywhere and will leave Britain morally compromised when trying to discourage others from following suit - we should be taking a lead on this issue and showing that we are serious about peace as well as being 'serious about our own defence'.

[Sean Fear]

I am totally unconvinced by the argument that unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country will persuade other nations to follow suit, or else not to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place.

It wouldn't have persuaded the Russians to follow suit in the 1980s and won't persuade the North Koreans or Iranians to follow suit in 2006.

Weakness is a form of provocation to other nations, not something that inspires them to emulate it.

[Yet Another Anon]

We will be hard pressed to prevent this from happening while we ourselves are guilty of proliferation.
I don't think it would make any difference - of the 5 main nuclear powers they all have them in an effort to have an edge on each other. I can't see China scrapping it's nuclear deterrent, if the UK were the only country with a nuclear deterrent then it would be crazy to scrap it because it would give this country something others didn't, the taliban would still want a nuclear weapon - supposing Saudi Arabia developed a nuclear weapon and then the Al Qaeda launched a successful coup, the weapon might well have been developed in response to a perceived threat from Iran, not to the UK or USA - if others had got rid of theirs could the RAF destroy the weapons facilities before they could perhaps launch an attack?

Supposing China invades Taiwan and the UK has no nuclear deterrent and then is looking as to whether to be part of a military response, in the absence of any other kind of overwhelmingly powerful weaponry this would leave the UK open to attack with no credible means of response.

But, until 2006, only 6 other nations felt the requirement for nuclear weapons
In addition to the UK there is Russia, China, USA, France, India, Pakistan and in addition to those South Africa had nuclear weapons and got rid of them, there is strong evidence that Israel has about 200 warheads with a capability for air launch from fighter\bombers, Switzerland developed the capability to produce nuclear weapons but never actually developed any although it was under consideration for many years, Libya had a nuclear weapons programme and a stated desire to develop them but appears to have abandoned this, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons programme in the 1980's and into the 1990's and would have returned to developing them if international attention had moved away, North Korea has the capability to build nuclear warheads but apparently not the capability as of yet to launch them although certainly they are eager to develop that, Brazil had a nuclear programme that was later abandoned, there are a number of other states that might have some kind of nuclear weapons capability or programmes towards them - Japan has been considering the issue, Sweden and Denmark as I understand it although not producing nuclear weapons have developed the capability to so do.

[Esbonio]

Mr Fulford

I think you are wriggling but thanks for your apparent concession that we were right to go into Afghanistan. As for any failure to achieve the objects you refer to, I would note that we have not been helped by our armed forces being under-resourced. (And we did not go there to deal with the poppies). Nor for that matter have we been helped by the failure of too many of our NATO allies to do their bit. Not that that that is new for those of us who remember their unwillingness to have cruise missiles in the 80s. Which almost brings me to the next part of your post. But first Iraq. I was sceptical about the invasion of Iraq because I feared it might turn out the way it has. Of course my scepticism might have been misplaced had the post-invasion organisation been better (including keeping the Iraqi Army together, although that might not necessarily have been a panacea). I do believe in a moral foriegn policy but I also believe in one based on British inbterests.
As a Conservative I do not believe in the perfectability of man. I believe history shows us that bad things happen and it is a good idea to let the bad guys know you have the means to squash them if they misbehave. As we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons and as the bad guys either have them or will soon have them then I believe the duty of western democracies is not to have their heads in the sand but to be in a position to fight fire with fire.

[Sean Fear]

"Tory strategy director Steve Hilton is reported to be cautious about the issue, however. He vetoed a speech by Liam Fox on the subject after a focus group test found that voters were reminded of the Thatcher era."

This is one issue on which the voters will be quite happy to be reminded of the Thatcher era. After all, defence was one of our biggest selling points then.

[Esbonio]

Running policy on focus groups may make short term sense (though I amnot convinced) but in the long term seems a cynycial recipe for disaster.

[Mark Fulford]

thanks for your apparent concession that we were right to go into Afghanistan.

For the avoidance of doubt, I made no such concession.

Supposing China invades Taiwan...

This comes to my point about the limited usefulness of nuclear weapons. Were China to invade Taiwan our £25 billion on nukes would be completely worthless. The scenarios where we could use nuclear weapons are very limited.

I believe history shows us that bad things happen and it is a good idea to let the bad guys know you have the means to squash them if they misbehave.

Yes, but in the eyes of many, we are the bad guys. They are using exactly this argument to justify arming themselves.

I am totally unconvinced by the argument that unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country will persuade other nations to follow suit, or else not to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place.

Joining 186 other non-nuclear nations is hardly unilateral. Besides, I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament. Every 25 years we have an opportunity to review our nuclear weapons program. We are about to go through that cycle without ever showing a committed willingness to disarm. The steps that I outlined earlier do not lead to disarmament unless the policy works. Politically I think it is also sensible for us to honour the spirit of the NPT.

[Esbonio]

Mark Fulford

Thanks for clarifying your view that you do not think we were right to invade Iraq.

As for your view that "in the eyes of many, we are the bad guys." so what? Does that mean we are the bad guys or they are the good guys, I think not. I fear you have swallowed the lefties gramscian agenda of moral relativism hook line and sinker.

[Esbonio]

mark

Apologies, for Iraq read Afghanistan.

[malcolm]

DVA, welcome back to this blog.In answer to your question,I don't think we can restrain other states from having nuclear weapons other than by force or making it worth their while. We have already seen North Korea, Pakistan and India build nuclear weapons despite opposition from much of the rest of the world including the United States. Diplomacy failed with those three and it looks like it will fail in Iran.
I felt that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a useless and futile gesture in the 1980's,absolutely nothing has occured in the last 20 years to make me think that anything much has changed.

[Richard]

It would be foolish to disarm on the basis that the current world situation makes it unlikely that we will have to use a nuclear weapon. Dismantling our nuclear forces is easier than rebuilding them. We have to think long term, we must not take risks with national security.

We should be quite blunt in stating that we deserve to have nuclear weapons while North Korea and Iran don't because while we are a liberal democracy, they are respectively a Stalinist playground and an Islamic Fundamentalist backwater half stuck in the Dark Ages. That may not be nice but it doesn't stop it being true.

[Yet Another Anon]

Diplomacy failed with those three and it looks like it will fail in Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwah against developing or stockpiling nuclear weapons, he is the one who has the final say so on anything to do with the military or major power development - the Supreme Leader is far and away the most powerful person in Iran, and as a Shia cleric to lie in a fatwah would destroy his credibility.

[TomTom]

the Supreme Leader is far and away the most powerful person in Iran, and as a Shia cleric to lie in a fatwah would destroy his credibility.

As a devout Muslim Yet Another Anon you must have heard of Taqqiya