Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
NEU AMERICANISED? GLOBAL WORLD GOVERNMENT

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Wars

Author Thread
Free World Order


tagged & banned


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU
NEU AMERICANISED? GLOBAL WORLD GOVERNMENT PostWed Mar 14, 2007 7:47 pm  Reply with quote  

NEU AMERICANISED? GLOBAL WORLD GOVERNMENT

"Nuclear Trident Weapons System Is Essential"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm

Seems the New World Order need to make some more wars yet!

WHERE FREEDOM IS WAR AND WAR IS FREEDOM!!!

AMERICA WANTS UK TO HAVE UPGRADED NUCLEAR TRIDENT WMD! It is not independent as house of commons and USA co promote it as being! It will be under US control as all other nuclear WMD that are owned by US in EU are!

Feel free to add any relevant links showcasing US nuclear WMD in Europe in control of US Admin! Do NATO have NUKES IN RUSSIA???

CONSERVATIVES AND LABOUR BOTH WANT NUKEM WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO FUEL MORE WARS AND SALES OF WMD TO FABRICATED ROGUE STATES -- FOR MORE FABRICATED WAR ON TERROR.

AMERICA ALREADY HAS NUCLEAR MISSILES IN ALL MAJOR WESTERN EU STATES AND SOME EASTERN EU STATES.


GERMANY NOW SUPPORT STAR WARS MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM FOR ALL OF NEU GREATER GERMANY OR EU STATES AS DO UK GOVERNMENT IN SECRECY FOR OVER 8 YEARS PLUS, IN ACTUALITY SPANNING DECADES!

Not all Germans want this, some of the nazi elite do though, backed by AMERICA and their push for missile shields and more nuclear WMD in Europe. Lots of profit to be made. RUSSIA is being pushed out and isolated by these very actions. it means more political tensions between Russia and Europe. The US continues its plans for energy such as oil and gas pipelines so Russia does not have control over selling energy to Europe.
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2007/03/16/usgasalternative.shtml

Freedom is dying each day. Laws are being broken...

EU TOLTALITARIANISM - FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY RULES OR DIES. WE KNOW IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER - IS IT TO BE THE EU OR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY THAT DIES???

Are we still to believe war is peace and freedom is slavery....and global warming is real...Nazis now using eco fascism for their goals of world government -- we have to support them willingly always...to enable them to succeed. Fact is environmentalism is being used for global government and global warming and cooling is natural - 5 thousand years ago it was so much more warmer than it is now. We survived it then and we can survive it now - even it we were to get global cooling or a new ice age. No need to have fear.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org


Last edited by Free World Order on Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Send private message
Free World Order


tagged & banned


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU
PostSat Mar 17, 2007 10:22 pm  Reply with quote  

Has no one got the guts to ditch Trident?


From The Times
March 14, 2007

Alice Miles

Of all the evasive arguments over the replacement of Trident, I find the “we don’t need to take a decision now” position the most dishonest. That it is the official stance of the Liberal Democrats shows just how pathetic that party has become.

The first bit of sophistry is the argument that today’s vote isn’t really about “replacing Trident”, but is about replacing the submarines that fire them. As if the submarines are much use for anything else. Alongside that, I would put Tony Blair’s demand that Trident’s opponents “need to explain why disarmament by the UK would help our security”. No they don’t. Mr Blair needs to explain how replacing Trident makes us more secure. Does anyone honestly believe that a leader crazy enough to fire a nuclear weapon at us would care whether we could fire one back at him?

The greatest nuclear threat we face is anyway not from a national leader but from stateless terror. Osama bin Laden has already tried to buy a nuclear bomb and I don’t suppose he has given up. Wouldn’t we be better off investing in the security of chaotic nuclear facilities around the world than buying more bomb power in Britain? Only last week the head of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s dilapidated nuclear reactor plant was arrested on suspicion of selling off unknown quantities of enriched uranium — nobody knows to whom. I imagine nothing would please a jihadist more than Britain retaliating against a nuclear attack by firing a nuclear missile at a Muslim country. The thought that we could retaliate like that would make us an even more tempting target.

I would never, ever, ever want a British leader to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. In any circumstances. Even if someone fired one at us. Even if a country fired more than one at us. I do not believe that responding with equal terror and carnage against other citizens, other families, would ever be the right thing to do. So perhaps for me the argument is simpler than it is for the tomahawks among you.

But can somebody tell me, how has our nuclear deterrent made us safer over the last two decades? Is Norway, is Argentina, less safe than the UK? Do you feel safer in London than in Lisbon? The Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, claimed at the weekend: “It’s not nearly as straightforward as people suggest. They sleep soundly in their beds at night because we have nuclear weapons.” What a pathetic argument; what highly enriched rot. Many of us would feel safer without them. So, Prime Minister, answer me this: can you think of another way to help our security, other than by spending £20 billion on new submarines?

I can. I can think of trying to engage with the Muslim world instead of using the bully-boy tactics of bombing and threatening it. I can think of unlinking our foreign policy from that of the United States to enable us to take some — some — defence decisions alone. I can think of leading by example and reducing our nuclear firepower as a step towards complete disarmament, to encourage other states not to develop theirs. I can think of using our fabled influence with the US to press for disarmament, not rearmament.

I know what you are saying, because I sat in a meeting at The Times yesterday and heard my colleagues saying it about Neil Kinnock. He had “reverted to type” by backing the rebel amendment on Trident, they sneered. He had forgotten why he had to impose discipline over nuclear weapons on Labour in the first place; he was “grovelling to his left-wing friends”.

I have been at The Times long enough not to be surprised at any amount of snickering either at Lord Kinnock or at the antinuclear lobby. What does strike me, however, is how long it is since I have heard any of the pro-nuclear lobby question their own assumptions. I would like to hear them debate whether a weapons system designed to strike at Russian cities in the Cold War is still the right system for a 21st-century stateless conflict in which we need to win hearts and minds, and to explain to me how you do that with bombs. I’d like to know when they think the guns and missiles are going to start persuading people to believe in Western-style democracy in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East.

Back to Mr Browne at the weekend: “Some people feel they are prisoners of the position that the party had before it changed in the 1980s.” What patronising rubbish: the prisoners of entrenched positions are our leaders at Westminster, groomed by Labour’s experience in the 1980s to believe it a political imperative to look “strong on defence”. Yet we sceptics are hardly an extreme minority: a poll for The Times in December found that only 52 per cent of people backed the missile system’s replacement. Just above half of us — that is far from an overwhelming mandate for the arguably pointless, even dangerous, expenditure of £20 billion on a load of vile bombs we never want to see used.

Couldn’t Gordon Brown, or David Cameron, or David Miliband or some other senior figure have had the guts to question whether replacing Trident is really necessary? Could the Liberal Democrats not bring themselves to oppose it outright? Mr Blair did not dare give the Cabinet a chance even to debate the decision openly: the White Paper proposing Trident’s replacement was shown to journalists last December, an hour and a half before the Cabinet held its meeting to “discuss” it.

So at least there is a debate to look forward to in the House of Commons today. What a pity, though, that it appears to be a foregone conclusion; that the vote has been passed before the debate begins. What a democracy. What a shame.


COMMENTS:

its digusting that mr blair does not clean up his own back garden before he cleans up somone eles,s weapons of mass disruption are here in the streets of the uk and calling a gun summit after three young boys lost there lifes is an insult to there familys he should hang his head in shame the blood is on his and john reid hands we told them victims and the killers would get younger in 203 and its only a matter of time before we have an othere dunblane and look at the news to day schoool shot at with air weapons again i blame mr blair and john reis mr blair shold attend the funerls of these victims and feel the pain the first young man shot in his bed is to be buried on the 29th of this month i bet mr blair wont even be in london its a DISGRACE mothers against guns

lucy cope, peckham, london

@ John Wellington.

'Be prepared' for what? Alice makes it clear that she wouldn't want to use our Nukes *under any circumstances* so what point is there in having any? If you agree with the sentiment, as I do, then there is no future, foreseeable or otherwise, that makes having a nuclear arsenal worhwhile.

The UK would be better off if we disarmed, declared ourselves neutral and stepped out of 'world politics' we have nothing of our own to bring to the table and blindly following the US into every ill-advised, if not illegal, conflict is only making us more of a target. Our IP-based economy is our strength now, and we don't need nukes to defend it.

Andy, London, London

I agree with Ms Miles on one point - £20 billion is a lot to spend on boats.
Let's siphon some off, give the "hawks" only £19.9b for their Subs, and spend the rest on education, such as Modern History.
It shouldn't cost too much to distribute free CDs to all UK youngsters, showing actual film footage of what happened when amiably disposed 'innocents' were confronted by aggressive lunatics within the last 70 years,e.g.:-
The Polish cavalry(on real horses) confronting tanks as WW2 got under way, the London Blitz, the 'camps' discovered at the end of it, the POWs from the Pacific conflict.
I was too young, by a year, to experience these delights but I later learned a lot from survivors, God bless them.
The only way to deflect "nutcases" is for them to understand that you are stronger.
In the event, my first CD shall go to Alice Miles.

Mike Medina, St. Albans, England

Do people seriously think that the UK matters in the world anymore - London is a major financial center but that is about it.
If the UK really does not matter anymore, I can hardly foresee a scenario where somebody would fire nuclear missiles specifically targeted at the UK. A rogue nation may launch a strike against a major European population target. Even in that scenario, other large European cities are probably more at risk than London. And therein lies the rationale for giving up the nuclear deterrent. Europe does need protection against rogue states but a NATO controlled missile shield with a US Nuke umbrella can take care of that eventuality.

WW2 examples and the issue of appeasing Hitler are irrelevant in this day and age. They apply to the UK of that era, not the diminished UK of today. UK companies do matter a lot in the world economy but they hardly have anything that links them to the physical territory of UK.

JT, Richmond,

Alice makes several very good points in this article, but fails to see one simple fact. The threat of the moment is in the form of stateless terror as she quite rightly states.

However, 30 years ago the perceived threat was from a major superpower armed with nuclear weapons. Who is to say exactly what form the threat of the moment will be in 5, 10, 15 or 30 years hence?

Given the long development time of such systems, is it not sensible to follow the boy scouts and "be prepared"?

John, Wellington, Somerset

Our first Roosevelt said to speak softly and carry a big stick.

The Navy of Nelson has no other big stick.

The best defense still remains the vigorous broadside from the fire of your own cannon.

Mullahs and Immans might be more responsive to the UK when they realize that a small nuke in the Tubes might be met by 48 big nukes in response.

Mr. Chamberlain, mistakenly worked for peace. He did not intend for a great nation to be irrelevant.

Dennis Michael, Cheyenne, Wyoming USA

I remember 1939.

We were not prepared for war then and we cetainly did not want to go tho war.
We had no deterant and as a result many people lost their lives anmd the rest of us our freedom.
When will we ever learn ?

Bernard Parke, Guildford,

As the world faces increasing dangers from nuclear proliferation, it is perhaps not a bad idea to keep our place at least on the second rung where we are in a position to dissuade even first-rung players from mounting a nuclear attack. Countries like Norway and Argentina were never under threat of nuclear attack precisely because of the Cold War MAD (mutually assured destruction) balance.

Such small countries will become increasingly vulnerable as nuclear proliferation increases. Now is not the moment to drop our nuclear defences casually.

Gervas Douglas, Auragne, F

Deferring or dropping the renewal project is not appeasment. As Labour MP Martin Simpson said tonight, the French after WWI invested huge sums in the Maginot lines and what use were they?

This is not the cold war. Using the same money strategically against nuclear proliferation and leakage, as Alice Miles warns of, would be a far better investment.

Jim Roland, London, UK

I cannot understand how we can argue that states like North Korea or Iraq, who have a genuine fear of invasion, should not have nuclear arms, but we, who have no fear of invasion, must be allowed to upgrade.
If you do not want other countries to arm themselves then show they are not required by disarming yourself.
If you believe we need them, then you have no standing in insisting others do not and have to allow them to create their own. Is that what you really want?

Bob, St Albans, UK

Alice Miles arugment is naive to say the least. Does she not understand the simple but brutal concept of deterrent? Of course, nobody would ever want to fire a nuclear weapon at innocent people but that is missing the point - in the future, what matters will be the delivery systems of these weapons and the ability of nations to supersede each other's systems and this will further act as a deterrent to would be aggressors - Alice Miles should understand this point - there is a reason why nobody has attempted to invade the UK in the past 60 years.

William Morris, Farnham, Surrey

I was always in favour of Britain having a nuclear deterent in the days of the cold war (not for me Aldermarston CND marches). But times have changed, building the next generation of nuclear submarines is useless, pointless and expensive. Who would have thought a Labour government in the 21St century would propose this?. Tony Blair has a fixation on the days of Empire and the irony is this thing will be pushed through with the help of the Conservatives (Blairs biggest buddies). Who am i supposed to vote for at the next general election? The New Labour Con Party, why don't they just line up at the same side in the House of Commons as they seem to agree on every major issue (blunder).

simon ulrick, Leeds, U.K.

Alice Miles betrays her inexperience and naivety in her second paragraph. Yes, such submarines can be adapted to other uses. As examples, usually they are equipped also with torpedoes and downstream could be adapted to conventional missiles for ship killing or attacking command centres and key targets. However, capable delivery platforms can no longer be cobbled together at 2 or 3 years notice to meet a crisis.

It is also easy for her to conclude in benign comfort that she would not use the system in any circumstances; her view would be much more difficult to promote to fellow citizens should Central London disappear amid zealous acclaim that an easy and decadent target had been found without risk of retribution.

Her argument is not that of a mighty pen, but a failure to grasp that intellectual claims need to be risk tested against accountability for a worst case. That is surely how a PM has come to a different conclusion from a pundit.

steven fieldfare, swindon, uk

"only 52 per cent of people backed the missile system’s replacement. Just above half of us — that is far from an overwhelming mandate"

Given that up to 10% of the remaining 48% are "don't knows" rather than in "againsts", I'd say that 52% represents a perfectly good mandate and is, as mentioned, more than half of us.

At the very least, you can hardly argue that the minority view should prevail, can you? Or are we all just idiots whose views don't count?

M F E FINN, Plymouth, UK

So last week it was alcohol is as bad as heroin and this week it's better to be bullied into submission than to threaten retribution..... oh dear. For 'War is not about dying for your country but making other people die for theirs' read 'Security is not about dying for your country but making other people think gonna die for theirs'.. but one can only assume that Alice can see no case for killing the enemy for fear of upsetting their families. Anyway, although Churchill(?) pointed out that you can rely on the US to do the right thing once all other options have been exausted and we shelter under the US nuclear umbrella, ours are aimed at the Americans just in case they forget.

Grouchy, London,

We should ditch the idea of submarine nuclear platform. Instead, we should secretly place a battery of nuclear missles in every embassy and British Consul office. Then it would take seconds, not minutes to strike back! And it would make the local police take a more robust attitude to demonstrators who look like they might rush the gates and violate the sovereign British grounds, when the fake walls move aside.

Apone, Maidstone, UK

I wish we lived in whatever world Ms. Miles lives in. But we don't.

Kim Murphy, San Antonio, Texas

ToMTom, I have just put down "Churchill, A life" by Martin Gilbet, having read the thing cover to cover. I think you will find it very enlightening, especially regarding Churchill's involvement in rearmament. Evidently you're not aware of the disastrous policy of appeasement that Chamberlain relied upon to deal with Hitler, all the while ignoring Churchill's pleas for rearmament from the back benches.
It won't I'm afraid help you with your stuck Shift key problem though. For that I recommend a) a screwdriver or b) stop typing.

Mark, Hong Kong,

Not to worry dear girl, no British prime minister will fire anything more serious than someone on his staff. The Brits have a 180,000 or so man army, an enfeebled navy, and no airforce to speak of. Why is this? It is because Britain is poor. Two and a half times poorer than Japan égal à égal. After Irak there will be nothing but bluster.

George Steiner, Lachine, Quebec, Canada

The matter is surely about renewal of the nuclear deterrent, not having it. Yet still nobody is saying anything about a joint European deterrent if there is a need for renewal. Why not? The usage of nuclear weapons is a bipolar position. There needs to be an action to justify a nuclear reaction, so the latter needs to be considered in the context of the former and presumably, from the very nature of the constant use of the term threat, the one will affect the other. It might therefore be, that in this notion of implied interdependence between threat and counter-threat, that a European collective position provides a better general security - a better perspective for confusing any threat - than a unilateral position. If the problem is rogue organisations, then, assuming that they are just rogue organisations and not organisations that have been perverted by incompetent or vicious foreign policy, then Britain would be more secure behind a general European response position. As to the skill base, what about the joint European fighter and the European aerospace industry in general, both civil and military?

Henry Percy, London, UK

Weapons systems like Britain's nuclear subs are more about money than anything else. With the demise of the USSR those subs and their nukes are redundant but don't tell "Big Weapons" who like "Big Oil" are the real ones who rule our lives. The problem lies in the economics of it all.

CTJones, Auch, France

The renewal of Trident has got nothing to do with safety, it's about vested interests and keeping the military machine going.

Yet again, the UK people have been whipped up into a frenzy that Trident must be renewed because of a looming threat from Iran. How convenient that the threat from Iran should just happen to coincide with Trident's renewal!

Graham, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

San Ying, Montreal, Canada -

Apologize to Japan? Imperial Japan was ruthless in its attacks against China, The Philippines and the U.S.

While I'm very fond of Modern Japan, Imperial Japan was given a chance to surrender and chose not to. No guilt or apologies here.
_______________

Mike Adams, Madrid, Spain-

"If someone breaks into my house and kills my son, yes I would want to take my revenge, it's a natural human emotion, but the point is that it's an emotive response. It's not something to be proud of, not something I would advocate."

If someone breaks into my house, they won't be walking out. Hopefully, I will get them BEFORE they get my son. I homeowner has the right to defend their family. As a father, even at the cost of your own life or freedom, you have an obligation to protect your children.

M. Fernandez, San Francisco,


Its not just about the failure of the nuclear question our democracy has been hijacked. follow this link to e petitions 10 downing Street
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Democratic-Fraud/

Mark Steele, Gateshead, Tyne Wear

To those who keep repeating that the UK can only use Trident with US approval, please take a look at the linked document
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E2054A40-7833-48EF-991C-7F48E05B2C9D/0/nuclear190705.pdf
which reaffirms that the UK is in sole control of their own nuclear forces.

Andy, Atlanta, USA

Isnt it time that we stopped refering to this topic as british DEFENCE, and more offense or attack. Then the situation may seem clearer in some peoples eyes.

Jack B, London/Southampton, UK

Go write for the Guardian, Mrs Miles.
In the dangerous world we live, a nuclear deterrent could very well come in handy.

Fabien, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

It is time for we Brits to forget the past. Look how Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland and others have succeeded without foriegn intervention and threats to bomb opponents into the stone age. Politicians should stop painting a target on the UK by their laddish interventions and nuclear posturing.

Chris Clarke, Cappaqua, NY USA

From time to time I doubt that there is life on other planets, but then I read an article like this and my faith is restored. Welcome to Earth, Ms Miles. I hope that you enjoy your stay here.

Kevin McGuinness, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Neville Chamberlain thought like Ms. Miles, and he was rather successful in Munich at achieving "peace in our time"... wasn't he?

Thank God Ms. Miles doesn't actually have to make that decision.

Knoxy, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

You're right. The main, if not only, real threat is from a "rogue state" or group - which would not be deterred by our possession of nuclear weapons.
But a statement to the world, and especially Muslim world, that we no longer sought to be imperialistic in our attitude to the world, but wanted peace, so would shut down our nuclear weapons - now that would be positive. And is much more likely to turn "neutral" states into allies.
So spend £1bn on conventional missiles (so people know we can still defend ourselves), another £1bn so our army has flak jackets and proper Land Rovers, and put the rest back into peaceful means.
A final concern: didn't the government rely on Tory votes on the Iraq war? And where has that got us?

Carl Chambers, Brighton, UK

I think I;m in a minority of one. Hear Hear!

gabor kovacs, Hampshire, UK

I know Iran will (probably) not launch a nuclear attack against the UK even if they could - because of Trident.

Shaun O'Kane, London, London

Never ask a prime minister EVER fire a nuke! Hmm. Should a rogue state launch an attack with a nuclear missile at London I would certainly want a retaliation. What planet does Alice live on? Sometimes certain people in the World only know the language of violence, threats, and deterents. And in this current World I would want to keep our nuclear missiles. It's too late to start thinking of wanting a nuclear capability if suddenly a rogue state acquires them. We certainly couldn't rely on our trusted friends in the USA to come to our help when the nuclear chips are down.

Michael Wodos, Chorley, UK

Alice Miles' article is more fundamental. Either people or nations have the inherent right of self-defense for themselves and their property or they don't. Weapons are the deterent. Why have the crime rates in the UK risen so drastically since the prohibiton against individual ownership of firearms? No deterent.

If one were to be able to ascertain how Ms. Miles was conditioned or programmed from youth to arrive at her belief of never, ever being willing to defend herself, perhaps the answer would be more clear about her agenda in writing this article.

Jim, Roscoe, IL/USA

Well Geez. Here's one Yank that thinks the logical part of her brain has been misplaced by her bleeding heart or her head is in a place where the sun doesn't shine! Of course if the UK were nuked the US would be both morally and politically required to respond in kind. Most of us from the US think so anyway and behold the wrath on one of our politicos who cautioned against such response. The whole idea of nuclear arms (and I will remind her that for 50 years...until the Soviet Union imploded on it's own lies we had realtive stability) is it's clear deterrent nature. If Iran, or any other country so inclined, would dare to use them, they would in fact be obliterated form the planet in the wink of an eye. As a dictator in one of those countries you must think of that. Thank goodness she isn't a member of Parliament of Congress in the US.

Don Collins, Voorhees, NJ

It's your country, not mine, but I find the defeatist tone in your statements astonishing. You really seem to be saying, "If we're attacked, there's nothing we can do about it, and we certainly shouldn't strike back against the attackers, as that would only make matters worse."

That's certainly a position to send someone like Bin Laden quaking, though probably more from laughter.

gb, Austin, USA

Durgesh Vyas in London made a salient point, in that much of Alice's argument was perhaps based on trust. Trust of an altruism which only ever exists if human needs are either satisfied or unthreatened. As an atheist , I strongly admire her notion of refusing to fire if fired upon as it reflects a rare love for life. However as she herself says, the greatest threat lies with one of the 'stateless terrors', for whom the West continues to be a growing target of anger by the minute. In the absence of a deterrant therefore, is it not possible that a 'leader crazy enough' will indeed care about our inability to respond, and be prompted to act in the cause of an ideological or resource led campaign?

George, Sussex, UK

All those in favor of Britain having and retaining nuclear weaponry would presumably, in the interest of fairness, be in favor of other sovereign nations also having nuclear weaponry.

Or do they think that other nations would be less "responsible" than Britain? (Overlooking the fact that Britain is incapable of using its nuclear weapons without the express approval of Washington.)

And to those that think Britain is more "responsible", please explain Britain's role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Also explain the qualities or characteristics that make Britain or America more "responsible" than other nations.

Richard Alan Smith, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA

There will be a fight the PRC and/or an islamic superstate in the next 20 years. That is the best case scenario, worst case scenario is that a suitcase nuke will be used and retaliation will be on other target than probably Tehran or Sudan..The option of deterrence as chirac said is that is that retaliation will be massive and unequivocal. This is hard, but real politics.

hansley, Unknown, Mauritius

Terrorism maybe our primary threat at the moment, but who knows what will happen with China in 20 years time? I would rather be ready than not.

Jamie Brown, Maidstone, England

I am not that old or worldly wise i was just old enough to remember the berlin wall being torn down, Just because that iron curtain has been gone for so many years it doesn't mean it can't return in another guise be it in europe the middle east or the far east or even god forbid america who knows i certainly don't and i'm sure many of you don't either but we do need some kind of nuclear detterent yes a nuclear submarine would seem like a good idea but having 3 or 4 is expensive to crew and run why not split the commitment between the RAF and the Navy you could have 2 submarines possibly borrowing from the exsisting U.S nuclear submarine designs (which would hopefully drive down costs further because all the development has already been done) and a squadron of fighter bombers or a heavy bomber whatever but i'm sure doing this would be a damn sight cheaper than £20 billion (obviously not including the massive over cost which always befalls us when ever we develop or help develop something e.g eurofighter)and would also help keep up man power across the forces and stop us from turning into a self defence force rather than an expeditionary force.

Robert, Carmarthen, Wales

If there are those in power who hold these views-heaven help us.During 1944 ,when London was being bombed hourly by V-1`s,the then Home Secretary,one Herbert Morrison,was bleating to Churchill that Britain should come to some kind of compromise with Hitler to stop this assult from the air.The then Chief of the Imperial General Staff,Alan Brooke,was party to these cabinet debates.He wrote in his diary that Morrison was the type of politican he had come to loath.He goes on to write that if such men came to rule(which they did post 1945)then this country was sunk for a certainty.How right and shrewd was Alan-Brooks observation concerning wet -libral and socialist polilticians.How low have they brought this country and how much lower they will bring if in the years to come

Patrick, Nottingham, England

The early relatives of the 'vile bombs' Alice Miles refers could be convincingly argued to have saved an enormous amount of lives and suffering by bringing the Second World War to a close ( See, for example, Henry Stimson's detailed writings on the decision to use the atomic bomb). I find her article overbearing and self-righteous, rather than provocative or of much interest.

David, London,

Alice

In the real world deterrence is a must to maintain balance in the international arena. It was certainly Trident, MX and the like that ensured the cold war remained cold, and that British cities stand today. The time is fast coming when western cities will face nuclear and biological attacks from the newly emerging dangerous regimes in the Middle East. The idea that even if you are attacked with nukes you should not respond accordingly is defeatist, naïve and suicidal.
It is easy for you to reach such an irresponsible conclusion in your article, as you have lived in peace, prosperity and plenty that have been the direct result of the nuclear umbrella protecting Britain. You do not abandon your great weapons unilaterally and expect others to follow suit.
Such stylish inferences have diminished the political will in Britain and the US and will ultimately result in the complete collapse of western civilization in face of aggression from inferior emerging cultures.

S. Adams, Sydney, Australia

I am left speechless at people who embrace such a limp thought process. I take it Ms Miles would also in that case have let Hitler bomb Britain to destruction or just signed away our freedom, to protect other citizens. The fact is current geopolitical tensions are not 'Stateless', Yes the State's behind the conflict remain nameless but they are there. Modern day liberals make assumptions based on their perception of a world, largely without major conflict over the last 60 years, it is assumptions such as these that leave the door open for the worst of human nature to rear its head and cause damage. Let 's disband the all armed forces and see how long we last as a Sovereign State. Until the human race is significantly advanced to realise that killing each other really isn't the way forward we have to embrace the and posess the most technologically advanced weapons available. To do anythig else is an insult to all those who died in the name of our freedom and are slowly being forgotten

Jon, London,

Perhaps this '£20billion' refered to above could go to giving our armed forces a boost. They have afterall been cut back for years.

Rightly or wrongly the Iraq war was started by a 'conventional' bombing campaign - by the Americans. Is our Royal Air Force capable of anything like a similar firepower?

Although the threat of nuclear will deter a foe, they know it is the last resort from the armory. However ruling the sky with a air force which can and will strike casts more fear - how many countries want to be smashed up by use of force?

James, Swansea, UK

Your assetion that Al-Qaeda is a 'stateless terror' is incorrect, especially with regard to any aspirations of theirs to purchasing nuclear weapons. If someone had nuclear weapons to sell, they must be an organisation, most likely a state, with large scientific facilities. In addition, to mine uranium or other fissile material requires infrastructure which is geographically specific. When Al-Qaeda attacked the United States, it did so from a base in Afghanistan, a base granted them by the Taliban government of that country. Any nuclear attack by state-less terrorists would be linkable back to an accomplice nation. We must maintain our nuclear deterent so that no enemy would have the inclination to use this method of attack. The rules of MAD have changed, where it is supply of weapons, not their direct deployment which will determine the targets in any future nuclear stand-off. To be without the deterent would be to invite others to strike with impunity.

KJ Keir, Aberdeen, Scotland

Times change.The Cold War stand - off played itself out long ago and nuclear weapons have become irevelant .You cannot nuke terrorists or fight an idea.We should be reminded ,at a time when we can only field eighteen servicable ships for our Royal Navy,that we are no longer a major player. Let us set an example by disarming.This would give us some real credibility in disarmenant negotiations around the Globe and in the Middle East.

Richard Stewart, Melksham, Uk

The whole definition of a terrorist is that of a non-state actor, meaning that they do not have a whole country as a return address. If they did let off a nuclear bomb in Britain, and you could pinpoint their location, the array of deadly missiles at our disposal would be adequate whilst preventing the deaths of millions of innocents. Secondly the £20 billion would be better spent safeguarding nuclear sites where terrorists may acquire the necessary material to make dirty bombs

How about if a state were behind it? Well for a start, at least we would have the moral highground when trying to discourage states like Iran from seeking nuclear weapons. Atm our position is absurdly hypocritical - telling them they cant but we are can! If another govt were to launch nuclear weapons at us would you feel it right to massacre civilians? It would not be the citizens but the govt that should pay, and we have conventional weapons that would achieve that w/o committing atrocities in the process!

David James, Warwick, England

"Does anyone honestly believe that a leader crazy enough to fire a nuclear weapon at us would care whether we could fire one back at him?"

This is a silly argument. All but the most extremely insane leader can be deterred. MAD worked for the whole of the cold war. The US showed it would use a nuke if it believed it would help its cause (beating japan) and there was no deterrent. Had Japan had Nuclear weapons and delivery systems would America have nuked them?

I don't know if trident makes us more secure or not, but anyone who has nuclear weapons and knows we could fire enough to incinerate them and their countries would think twice befroe attacking us.

neil murphy, cromer,

Trident might not deter al-Quaida, but what about Iran? Who will keep "engaging" with people like Alice until they're kitted-up.

frank pooley, bristol,

Let us hope that Alice Miles is never placed in a position of accountability for anything serious. Her position that the UK should undertake never to respond to any attack `even if a country fired more than one at us' would be criminally irresponsible if she was ever in a position to put her concepts into action. Ms Miles should look up the definition of `deterrent' in the dictionary.

David Hood, Calgary, Canada

Am I living in an alternate reality when I wake up and read an article like this- by a Times correspondant no less! Ms Miles, you and everyone like you, are living in a civilian, middle class fantasy world. You, and people like you are the reason the UK is the most likely victim of the type of attack you trivialise. In your defense, I suppose it's hard to grasp the threat when life consists of choco frappe, no whip lattes and chardonnay with city types most nights, but your views are very troubling when one considers your exposure to generally excellent reporting. Comments such as "I would never, ever, ever want a British leader to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. In any circumstances." sound as if they've fallen out of the mouth of a sobbing five year old. Absolutely pathetic. I think it would be the deepest wish of most normal people that the origin of any attack on the UK, the murderers of millions of friends and loved ones, would quickly burn from a multitude of RN launched Tridents

Richard Molloy, Dallas, USA/Texas

Alice asks whether anybody stupid enough to fire an atomic weapon at us cares whether we ca fire one back. The answer is yes, that was the whole basis of the cold war, both sides new that if they started it all would lose. Does Alice seriously think that by not having atomic weapons that North Korea, Iran or some other state not yet having a nuclear facility is going to say 'Oh well, the UK doesn't have atomic weapons, we'll leave them alone'. Other Arab states don't want the bomb because we, the French, Americans, Chinese, Russians and Israelies have it, they want it because Iran nearly has it. Also, the £20 Billion cost would be speard out over 10 years, making the budget more manageable. Also, £20 Billion pounds spent and not needed is far better than inihilation from a 'rogue' state.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Everyone seems to have missed the point that there is a cheaper way of staying in the nuclear club. We don't have to go the whole hog of a completely new submarine with a completely new system (courtersey of the US) we could just building new Trident subs and use the existing weapons.

Margaret, Castle Cary, UK

If Britain was ever in a situation where (a) it had no nuclear-armed allies, (b) it had no nuclear weapons, (c) it had a nuclear-armed enemy intent on invading Britain, then Britain would have to submit to invasion by that enemy. For example, in 1945, non-nuclear-armed Japan had to submit to invasion by the nuclear-armed USA.

I strongly support Britain's nuclear deterrent, and also believe that Britain should have powerful conventional forces, so that the nuclear option doesn't become the only option. The Royal Navy should be strengthened considerably: Britain should have aircraft carriers equipped with the Sea Harrier or a modern replacement.

Martin, London, UK

Dear Alice,

Can I come and live on your planet please?

Si, Reading,

"If you choose to hide behind America, then don't complain about being a poodle"

But that point applies whether we scrap Trident and huddle beneath the US nuclear umbrella or keep Trident but which we can only use with US permission.

If we were talking about a truely independent deterent then the pro-Trident arguments might have some merit but how much of an added deterent is it that shortly after the US blows a huge hole in an aggressor the UK could then blow a smaller hole?

As to not knowing the future, what happens if in 40 years time the biggest threat to the UK actually comes from the US?

Steven, Kent, UK

Given the likely election result on May 3 there is unlikely to be a UK in which to deploy a Trident replacement in 10-15 years. Scotland clearly does not want it - and England is not listening to us. You will not get another warning.

Iain, Aberden, UK, currently

The whole premise of Alice's argument is misplaced. A decision about defence capabilities relevant to the UK should only be decided keeping UK factors on the plate. If one of those defence factors require a nuclear element, in whatever shape or form, to address the threat Britain is facing or may face then so be it. We know new countries will try to procure nuclear technology and old ones will not give it up. Therefore on the issue of international politics the question is not whether should "they" have one when I am not giving up but whether I have the awareness and humility of not using it as a weapon of first choice despite gravest threat but merely as a weapon of defence and second choice.

Prabhat, UK,

Ditching our nuclear weapons is simply mad. I would not be suprised if there is a WW3 in the next 50 years. A looming energy crisis awaits us. Any every country will be scraping. We're increasingly more reliant on the middleast and Russia for our oil and gas supplies. One day they may simply turn of the taps. I for one would expect my government to do whatever it takes to secure supplies. At the end of the day, my country, my life, my children. I choose them over anyone else. Its selfish, buts its also natural human instinct.

Durgesh Vyas, London, England

Is anyone actually sure - I mean really sure - where the threat is going to be from in five years' time, let alone in twenty, or beyond? How sure were you in August 2001?

Things change, and they change quickly. We don't know who the next enemy is going to be, but we absolutely must be prepared for the current state of play changing quite dramatically.

Just because the greatest nuclear threat we face at the moment is not from a nation, it doesn't mean that that will always be the case.



Neil, London,

I think that we need to keep a nuclear capability but I don't agree that replacing Trident is neccessarily the best course of action. The main reason for that is cost - we know that Gordon and the Treasury will take the money for the Trident replacement from the rest of the defence budget, so replacing Trident will actually hurt our defences against other threats, notably terrorism.

I believe that we should replace the Trident ICBMs with cruise missiles and give the rest of the Trident budget back to the conventional defence budget.

That will also have the effect of complying with Treaty obligations to reduce ICBM count.

Bry Barnes, Somerset, UK

Scotland will probably be leaving the Union before too long. The Scots are clearly against this expensive, dangerous and unusable toy.

Can someone please tell me what will happen once Scotland quits. Will these machines be made redundant?

Alfred, Ryde, Isle of Wight, UK

I agree with several of the other posters. What is being advocated is not meaningful disarmament, but becoming Free Riders. America is disparaged, but the entire argument rests on the assumption that Britian can disarm because, when it comes down to it, America will still have nukes if the West needs them. Britain can join the club of countries who hide behind those who provide protection and snipe at their protectors rather than their enemies, rather than remaining on the side of the protectors. At least be honest enough to admit this.

And those who call for Western disarmament, open your eyes. Nuclear weapons are a 60 year old technology which can offer insignificant failed states great leverage. Just ask Mr. Kim. They are not going away. As long as you are expecting that, add flying pigs to your list.

Andy, Atlanta, USA

I am intrigued to hear what percentage favoured an outright abandonment of the nuclear deterrent (not necessarily the remaining 48% of poll respondents)
and also Alice Mills' view on the dialogue with Iran.

Caesar Radley, Billericay,

Judging by the respondents here, I don't really have to argue much. Its all already been said! Any idea that removing a nation's nuclear deterrent makes them safer is quite simply wrong. Glad to see there are plenty of people who agree!

And at the end of the day, I'd rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

Chris, Altanta, USA

I don't believe many people in the UK live in fear of a nuclear war. I do believe that many people in the UK would fear not having a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons have very little bearing on day to day foriegn policy, that is simply down to arrogance and years of neglect. Saving £20 billion on Trident will not bring about peace and goodwill on earth, but it will ensure the system (and lets face it, it is here to stay in some format) remains safe and in good order.

Dino, London, England

So:
Crazy national leaders are not deterred by beingattacked with nuclear weapons.
And Ms Miles is not deterred by being attacked with nuclear weapons.

Thankfully she is not a national elader.

James , Oxford,

Unlike France, Britain has no independent control over its nuclear deterrent.

Its use, even in the case of attack by another nuclear country, needs the explicit approval of America.

So the British are being asked to pay -- yet again -- for a weapon system that will never be used and over which they have no real control.

As usual, the British public has been placed in a fog of confusion and misconception -- by Downing Street and Whitehall and their puppet masters in Washington.

Incidentally, the Swiss pay just 7% of GDP for national defence.

One wonders if they sleep more or less soundly than paranoid British and Americans.

Richard Alan Smith, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA

Alice in wonderland -- or rather, Alice Miles living in a dreamy world of her own. Cup-cakes, cheerful cuppas, and everybody in the world being 'nice' to each other. Only Big Ears gets a bit ratty with Noddy 'cos he's such a rascal. Oh dear, if only it were so. Unfortunately there are people around who would blow us all to Kingdom come if they had the slightest chance. We have to have a defence that can really deter them. The nuclear option, sad to say, is the only way. PC Plod simply wouldn't have the same effect.

Angus McFarlane, Bucharest, Romania

I think looking at the world now and saying we don't need Nuclear weapons is both short sighted and short on memory. Who knows what the future may bring and what allies we may or may not be able to rely on? Who knows what enemies may grow and bring about another Cold War? If its a choice between using nuclear weapons or not, it depends on the circumstances. If we don't have any, the decision is made for us.

Chris, Sheffield,

It would make me feel absoloutely no better if after being nuked we could respond and destroy them! I`d still be dead.

The only way to 'win' is not to play the game, and engage others in doing the same thing. Dump the nukes.

Then they can cut taxes, upgrade health, education...fight climate change...anything useful!

Calvin Jones, Aberdeen, Scotland

Oh wow!
I'm in love.
I have met my true spirit.
Alice Miles is the only one for me.

I have been trying to write down these same words and due to my limited use of the English language, the end result has always eluded me.

Thank you Alice Miles for your clear and concise article.

May you run for Parliament. I wouls move house to make sure I voted for you!

Jeremy, Martock, England

The idea the other countries listen to you arguements and judge them according to their merits is utter nonsense. Our nation and every other nation do what is best for the population of that country. In Britain we elect someone else, in other countries the rebels rise killing the incumbent party or force a hasty retreat into exile when annoyed.

Trident only works in the new terrorist age if when someone sets of a device in you district you hold an investigation find a country that has helped them and kill evey last man woman and child in that country as a point in principle. I think this may be illegal in international law and any elected government would be too spineless to do it.

Without the weapons you cannot exert the force that is the basic fact. Money and sanctions are the only force you can use in rogue states. Make the situation so bad in the country that eventually they will kill their leader and start the cycle again.

John Reekie, Egremont, Britain

Alice in wonderland, rather stick to education and health. Your naivety is as astounding as your miscalculation as to how far down the evolutionary track our specie has evolved.

Shane, London, UK

I'm afraid if we were to get nuked the UK would be finished, I watched a show call threads (1984) if the UK was nuked, it is a chilling reminder of what could happen to us. we need the presence of our weapons we use to own half the world, now we are a laughing stock...

Adam Webb, Milton Keynes, UK

Alice, you are so naïve. The reason for updating Trident, and buying hopelessly-vulnerable carriers good only for warmongering, is that without them and their escorts there is blatantly no reason to retain the Royal Navy - and junking that is something that REALLY scares politicians.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

"BTW it was Churchill that pressed for the rearmament of Britain, not Chamberlain"

WRONG Mark. Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer 1931-1937 - Churchill was a sulking Backbencher without power. In May 1940 he had airplanes because had ordered them and Chamberlain was in Churchill's Cabinet AND Leaderv of the Conservative Party. It was Churchill as Chancellor 1924-1929 that CUT Defence Spending on the Ten Year Rule - that there would not be another war for a decade. It was Churchill who cut back the Royal Navy and stopped work on Singapore

ToMTom, Leeds, England

Now the Cold War has ended, the case for replacing nuclear-tipped ICBMs is tenuous.

However, there is a case for retaining nuclear weapons. Cruise missiles and freefall bombs are much more relevant to the potential threats we face in the 21st century than Trident or its equivalent.

Martin Lowe, Nottingham, UK

The only reason our politicians (of both main parties) are spending this money is that it buys them a place as a permanent member of the UN security council. If we scrapped our nuclear weapons it would hasten the day when the UK and France would have to give way to an EU representative. This is just an exercise in self-aggrandisement by our political class at our expense.

Peter Ward, Oundle, UK

Thank whichever Gods are up there that Alice Miles is not in a position to run the defence of this country. Just as the Liberals such as her have handed immigration to the loons, benefits to the scroungers and relegated commonsense to the scrap merchants she would hand defense to the hand wringing meally mouthed brigade.

Alice, stay to what you do best, working in the most despised profession, hating England and seeking to undermine all that was once good in this country.

Churchill she ain't!!!

Paul Phillips, Birmingham, UK

Another "fluffy", morally superior viewpoint that has absolutely no bearing on the reality of this world. Particularly disturbing is the fact that under no circumstances would Alice Miles EVER concur with retaliation. Blaming foreign policy, our association with the USA, our Colonial past - is there no point at which people like Alice realise that there really are some bad people out there who just don't like us? Who find it easier to blame their own failings on the "West" and with growing aggression? Engage with the Muslim world? Where was the "Muslim World" in Yugoslavia when fellow Muslims were being slaughtered? What is the "Muslim World" up to now in Iraq, slaughtering one another because of "sects"?Alice' moral attitude/viewpoint would no doubt extend to even arming conventional forces, no doubt we should do away with them too and live in a nice "fluffy" comfortable world where we turn the other cheek.

Andrew, Edinburgh,

I would never put Alice Miles in charge of defending this country. Ever. In any circumstances.

Martin Shippey, Stamford, UK

Killing people is repugnant. Killing millions of people is even more repugnant. However, reducing our ability to threaten the rapidly growing and eagerly arming forces of Islamism is more repugnant still. The islamists would happily incinerate every one of us and dance with joy when they'd done it. Just what sort of conversation and moral conversion do you expect to have with such forces?

Mike Woodman, Bradford, England

what drivel. "Does anyone honestly believe that a leader crazy enough to fire a nuclear weapon at us would care whether we could fire one back at him?" - the simple answer is YES

greg, St.Helens,

The deterrent kept the Russians sane for 50 years ( and us too). Ahmadinejad is just as mad so it's likely he too will heed the message
But the real reason for Trident is to have a weapon far offshore to threaten the UK government with especially a MIlitant Tendency type socialist one. Don't trust anybody!

david Kay, Hemingford,

For the next decade or two, we seem destined to be involved in assymetrical warfare. Major nation states that we originally had Trident to act as a deterrence against are unlikely to be our enemy. However, in 20 years time things are likely to have moved on. Yes we may still be in an ongoing messy assymetric war that nukes are not suited for, but we will also most likely live in a world with many nation states with nukes. Russia is currently murdering inconvenient opposition politicians and journalists, while using energy supply as a strategic weapon. What will our relations with them be in twenty years? Or China? Not to mention North Korea and Iran? And if Iran goes nuclear, as surely it will, how about Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Turkey. Even Iraq once we've pulled out and let the Shia majority do their murdering worst?
Its not the current conflicts we need to prepare for, its what happens in 20 years time, which incidentally is when the replacement would be ready.

G, London,

Its obvious that Blair mustn't go until Bush has succeeded in getting the UK to committed to spending billions to support the USA's agressive re-armament.
If Cameron had an inkling of how many potential Conservative voters feel about this he would put down an amendment postponing any decision on Submarines/Trident for 12 months and defeat this ridiculous proposal.
This would give time for the UK's voters to make their wishes known.
If the decision in a years time supported this expenditure so be it but it should be made without the influence of Blair or Bush

A J Hoare, Haltwhistle, U K

Alice Miles seems extremely naive.

Robert, Amersham,

Man, give the girl a break! I think she has a very good point. It's a much more complex topic than it first appears, and the lady's opinion is a little simplistic, but it's also a valid contribution to the debate.

Just imagine what an example to the world that Britain could give by being the first nation (correct me if I'm wrong) to abandon nuclear weapons! Suddenly our arguments against nations like Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons (allegedly) have much more strength.

If someone breaks into my house and kills my son, yes I would want to take my revenge, it's a natural human emotion, but the point is that it's an emotive response. It's not something to be proud of, not something I would advocate. It's a stupid analogy.

Mike Adams, Madrid, Spain

Surely, if we abandon Trident, we give a bigger incentive to 'rogue states' to get neclear weapons - it would give them the ability to threaten us without the risk of retaliation

m wood, castle cary,

I hesitate to contribute to a comments section so uniquely full of bigotry, but for what it's worth, I think Alice Miles makes a perfectly sensible case, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Tom, London, UK

And (because I ran out of room...) perhaps the most salient point in all of this is that just because you 'believe' and 'feel' any nuclear response to an attack would never be justified, doesn't make you right. Even the strongest of moral convictions can be mistaken. You claim to value democracy - but most people would vote to keep the deterrant.

For people like me to stand against your argument and be labelled 'tomahawks' for doing so, just proves how intransigent you are in your opinion, so I am aware nothing I say will change it, but just because an opinioin is 'nice' and 'ideal' does not make it right - those of us who disagree with you are not 'wrong' for doing so, those of us who would support a nuclear retaliation if a state (a state mind, not a terrorist) instigated one against us, are not cranks or would-be murderes, we are people with a different viewpoint to you. If the world knew we'd never respond, it would be more likely to act than otherwise.

Matt Corton, London, UK

Hello Alice,
Please, be my guest and try to engage with the Taliban or with the jihadist groups in, say, Falluja.
I shall be interested to read your column when you get back.
Oh, let me guess, somebody else should be doing the engaging while you stay at home and write articles like this one?
This article is an argument for total pacfism, not against Trident. It was total pacifists that got us nearly destroyed in World War Two by preventing action or even rearmament until it was almost too late. Pacifists pretend to care about people whereas in fact their naivete and stupidity is actually very dangerous and threatening to people.

Charles, Bath, UK

I find the idea that any other 'state' would take notice of anything Britain did, ie, in disarming its nuclear deterrant, ludicrous. In terms of international strategy and direction, aside from allying with invading forces of course, Britain is a joke - you only have to see how France and Germany sneer at everything we say to see that. So why would they pay any attention to our disarmament?

And as for the last twenty years, our nuclear deterrant served as exactly that to the USSR. It was important for the free west to take a stand against communism, or its resurgence after it fell, and in order to do that, in order for the USSR to even sit at the same table as either Britain or the US, we had to be at that table with the backing of nuclear weapons behind us. We need the same backing when dealing with N Korea, Iran, now. That is a fact, it's how international politics works - the biggest guns, economies and armies will always be a factor in any negotiation, no matter how small.

Matt Corton, London, UK

This article should never have been accepted by the editor of a newpaper like the Times. The pure naivety of believing that the UK could openly state that we would never retaliate if someone nuked us. Doesn't Alice Miles realise that such a statement would be like a red rag to a bull for terrorist organisations. The whole point of being a nuclear power and openly stating we would use it if necessary is to act as a serious deterrent to foreign nations and terrorist organisations.

will jermyn, london,

The deterrent of Nuclear weapons and in particular ballistic missile submarines is like insurance, expensive and unlikely to be used but you would be foolish not to have any cover! It exists to cover future eventualities and in today's world everyone has trouble predicting Six months ahead, let alone Ten to Twenty years.........

Richard Davis, Epsom, UK

The arguments for keeping the bomb appears to be that we are more likely to be attacked if we do not have it. The reason that mobile nuclear deterents were created was to show the Russians that regardless of anything we would launch an attack and therefore there was stalemate. This is no longer a valid reason with the current detection capabilities we could never be caught short and would be able to retaliate. Keep some missiles on the ground but get rid of Trident and show the rest of the world that we should all disarm and make everone safer.

I am more afraid of America or Israel using their nuclear bombs to teach a country a lesson before they develop a nuclear capability of thier own. If the arguments that more weapons make us safer then by all means give every country a few bombs and then there will never be any more wars.

Joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Dear Alice Miles, have you ever lived abroad? Have you ever lived in the Middle East or in a Communist country? Have you ever experienced what it is like to see life in a fundamentally different way from the next person? Have you known poverty? Or have you been educated in a nice environment where nice people provide nice books about how nice life could be if only we were all nicr to one another?

Margarita, London, England

The idea that a country wouldn't be put off by a nuclear deterrent are deceiving themselves in order for their argument to gain more credence. The possibility of repercussions from a nuclear assault from a similarly nuclear power is quite obvious, even to us without inner knowledge of international intrigue.
I completely agree that unleashing a nuclear attack in answer to one on ourselves would be highly regrettable. However an attack of this kind on Britain would be a blatant act of war and in today's kind of war the innocent are just as likely to die as the soldiers and we must unfortunately be prepared to make difficult decisions in order to protect ourselves from those prepared to go to nuclear extremes for whatever reasons.

Adam Drew, Salisbury, Wiltshire

Alice Miles would never, ever, ever want a British leader to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. In any circumstances.

I'm extremely relieved then, that Alice Miles is not a British leader and never will be. Ever. In any circumstances. Personally, I make it a rule of thumb never to state what I will or will not do without knowing at least something about what the circumstances might be at the time..

Cliff Pooley, Cheltenham,

Thank you, Alice. Moral arguments apart, I suspect that there are many in the military who would prefer to spend £20b on equipping our troops to a high standard; the experience of the last few years would seem to imply that this would be money better spent. There may be others, of course, who would point out that, at current rates, £20b would pay for 9 years' worth of consultants for the government. It's difficult to assess which would put the country in greater danger: the bomb, or the consultants?

Gordon Cardew, Norwich, UK

As a Tomahawk for most of my life I can now look back and see that it was just patriotic pride, our bombs must be bigger and better than their's. Even as a Tomahawk there was always the nagging doubt that would it ever be justified to use or even threaten to use these things. The Tomahawks should look closely at themselves to ensure their thinking is not similarly warped.

Peter Donson, Southwell,Notts, UK

Diplomacy depends on might. Britain's position in the world reflects our military abilities. The other side will talk to us purely because "derriere moi j'ai la flotte" - UK ambassador to France c1900. Without the ability to enforce our will our ambitions in diplomacy will amount to nothing. In effect Trident is the opening negotiating position. Everyone knows we have it. Next following is the army/navy/RAF. The two together give a basis for successful diplomacy. We could of course survive without them but that would reduce our voice to Andorra. The world would be poorer without UK diplomacy.

David Morrison, Airdrie, UK

we need atomic weapons to satisfy our need to show the world we are not falling behind and are keeping up with the words of our nationistic chants about being "mighty",- "never will be slaves" .and all the other boastfull claims in which we regularly claim to be "second to none." Just watch" Last night of the Proms "for confirmation .

ed bradbury , bournemouth, dorset bh91aj

The likes of Argentina, Portugal and Norway sleep safe at night due to the protection offered them by the USA and the likes of the UK and France who play a subsidiary role in the defence of the West. Sure, the UK could try for a free ride as well but without active allies the US will increasingly question it's side of the bargain. The question is not ' why should the UK retain a nuclear defence ? ' but should the West? If you really believe that the West, i.e. the US, should go non nuclear then argue the case, but to argue that the UK should go unilaterally non nuclear is just naive, selfish and parochial.

J White, Paris, France

"I break into your house and kill your son, do you want to harm me now? I kill your husband. Do you want to harm me now?"
Wrong analogy. It should be, I break into your house and kill your son. Do you want to kill my wife and kids? I kill your husband, do you want to kill my neighbours now?
I agree with Alice Miles on this. How do you respond to a terrorist bomb in the UK? Do we propose that we'd nuke Islamabad, or Cairo? What about Leeds?

Bob, Cambridge,

Both sides of the argument have validity.

The submarines have dual capability, being able to fire both nuclear and conventional weapons like Cruise and deploy special forces.

We should reduce the capabilty to 2 subs - just one nuclear missile on a country's capital would deter any reasonable governing body.

With only a couple of subs, they might be bit late, but dead is dead...

Bill Bird, Wallasey, United Kingdom of Great Britain

The feminine mind sees things in very simple terms and is out of its depth in dealing with the issues of strategic power. The significance of symbols, the aura of authority, the ultimate ability to exercise power and essential nature of these things if a country or a civilisation is to remain at peace and not to be overrun is just not understood. Britain's problems today are in large part a result of that emasculation and naivety that feminism has brought into public life.

Ber
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org
 View user's profile Send private message
Free World Order


tagged & banned


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU
PostSat Mar 17, 2007 10:35 pm  Reply with quote  

DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM THE EU FASCISTS! AND AMERICAN NUKES!
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

All times are GMT.
The time now is Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:39 pm


  Display posts from previous:      




© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base