"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Friday, 19 March 2010

Friday Post

Quiet Man makes the clear-cut case for a sovereign nation keeping control of its nuclear deterrent - it's logical but our govt doesn't 'do' logic:

"The UK is a nuclear power, some people don't like this, however that's the way it is even if we did keep our nukes safely under lock and key away with a bicycle lock. Part of this means that we have nuclear submarines patrolling unseen and undetected around areas we see as threats or assets (Yes Argies if you fancy another Belgrano incident come and have a go) Now there is some dispute as to whether or not the nukes we have are actually under American control (as in we can't fire one without their permission) but the subs themselves aren't, nor are they under EU control as yet, though that may be about to change.
"Yes it's expensive, but, considering the fact that many countries out there are developing a nuclear option probably necessary. As even if they manage to disable or take out a land target, they'll never know where or when our revenge will come from, that's the whole point of deterrence. Yet if we share patrols we also agree to take on the interests of the French, whose interests are not and have not ever been in ours. We may share common ground, but we certainly don't have the same world view or same purpose in government. This would leave us having to consult or perhaps get permission to use our forces in our best interests, which may not be in the interests of our EU neighbours, certainly wasn't during the last Falklands war when the Belgians refused to supply us with ammo.

"Personally I think all our military needs should be produced here and under our control, even if made under license, certainly at least the ammo. We should however remove the military procurement regime from the MOD, if we need to buy, let us get the best value for money, if it means buying from abroad (helicopters and the like) see if we can build here under license, but get it here, train our people again in manufacture and keep the EU at arms length on the one part of our sovereignty that allows us to defend ourselves."


  1. Peronally I don't think we can afford them. We don't have enough money for disinfectant for our hospitals, and the number of pensioners who have died this year form cold and malnutrition will be shocking.

    Let the rich countries do the protecting. The UK is is in a worse state than Greece.

    However, if they must be had to keep the likes of Brown or Cameron at the top table of the world, and continueing to pretend that the Uk is important, can we please have them moved out of Scotland where the bulk of the people don't wnat them. Not that democracy was ever likely to play and important role in a country with an hereditary head of state, an hereditary/appointed senate and a first past the post second house where over half the seats never change hands.

  2. It is one that has puzzled me, and I am still not sure where I stand, though I tend towards disarmament, because nuclear capability in our part of the world is anachronistic, expensive, and is, in itself, a reason for us to be targeted.

    On the other hand, I always deploy this argument for doubters:

    Man in village have big stick. People in village respect man with big stick. Man without big stick is sad. People laugh at man without stick and take his wife and his cattle and beat him up.

  3. Hi Tris and WW, it's interesting that you're both from north of the border. QM's article though was about procurement and who controls our nuclear deterrent not whether to retain them or not.
    Tris, I'm not sure this can be argued from a separatist, republican point of view when we're a United Kingdom. When/if Scotland is truly independent then your argument would have more traction. I'd have no objections to them being based in England where employment and local economy would be boosted. I take your point about cost but I feel there are other areas of our big state govt that can be culled before nuclear deterrents.

    WW it's a sensible ideology you hold for a sensible world, which, sadly, doesn't exist. Asia and the MidEast are awash with nuclear capability and its scattered remnants. The world is too unstable but it isn't nuclear capability which makes it so. Nice 'big stick' analogy with which I agree.


Related Posts with Thumbnails