Comments on: Replacing Trident? The UK's role in nuclear proliferation

Replacing Trident? The UK's role in nuclear proliferation

nthdegx — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:52:59 -0800

Clare Short MP, former International Development Secretary for the UK Labour government, debates replacing trident and the UK's role in nuclear proliferation (and the world in general) with Michael Codner, Director of Military Science at the Royal United Services Institute. Scroll to the bottom for the mp3s.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:11:44 -0800

I should think that replacing Trident with Michael Codner would result in a less-than-effective deterrent scheme.

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:20:57 -0800

No, you should think that replacing Trident with Clare Short would result in a less-than-effective deterrent scheme.

By: Unregistered User

Unregistered User — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:28:18 -0800

"What the world needs now, is ~~love~~ nukes sweet ~~love~~ nukes..."

Just what the world needs: Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Program
Pakistan has begun building what independent analysts say is a powerful new reactor for producing plutonium, a move that, if verified, would signal a major expansion of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities and a potential new escalation in the region's arms race..
What are the consequences for the India/US deal on nuclear technology? With apologies to Dionne Warwick and Burt Bacharach

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:38:43 -0800

The last Q-A mp3 is well worth a listen. Surprisingly, for a greenpeace-chaired debate, Clare's POV gets a pretty rough questioning from the audience.

By: rob511

rob511 — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:00:51 -0800

But ... but ... how could 4 out of 5 irredentists be so wrong?!

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:59:03 -0800

Gwynne Dyer has had a few things to say on this topic: British Nuclear Follies and British Nukes: Taking the Long View. In the first, he makes a point about American influence which is also in the Q&A session mp3:

Britain is not a truly independent nuclear power like the US, Russia, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan. It manufactures its own nuclear warheads, but ever since the Nassau agreement of 1962 it has depended on the United States for its missiles -- and those missiles come with strings attached. Indeed, the Tridents that Britain operates now would be unusable in eighteen months without constant American technical support, and it is unimaginable that Britain would ever fire them without American consent.

Hyperlink added by me, of course.

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:52 -0800

Here's a thought: Swords into plowshares! Why not take all the money and energy and resources used to fund weaponry and warmaking and turn it back on itself to be used for schools, health care, food production and expanding outwards to help those nations that most need that help, such as those warring third world nations that could use a helping hand instead of someone selling them weaponry to fight wars for resources. But then again, that's just a fantasy. . . Caring isn't as profitable as killing.