| Product: |
Are Nuclear Deterents still needed in the UK? |
| Date: |
18/03/07 (96 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Safety of our Country is most important
Disadvantages: Cost is high - But can you have a price on safety?
Are nuclear deterents still necessary? In one simple answer - YES ABSOLUTELY!
Why?
In my opinion this country still needs nuclear weapons to keep the country as safe as possible. Lets look back over the last 70 years!
I think everyone will agree that one reason that the Soviet Union never invaded Western Europe was the Nuclear deterrant that the West had. Therefore it is clear that Nuclear Weapons do work as a deterent against a super power.
OK, I hear what a number of you are probably saying now, the Soviet Union is no more and the threat to this country has changed. Rather than one superpower threatening us, we have Global Terrorism and smaller conflicts.
Is a nuclear deterent any good against Global Terrorism? This is a hard question to answer as it is uncertain. On one side I do not think that a Terrorist is going to be too worried about a nuclear weapon as he is a single person and a country is hardly going to attack him with a nuclear weapon. However there is a second side to Terrorism, that is the State Sponsored Terrorism. This is one side where a nuclear deterent would be useful. After all, should a country think of sponsoring a terrorist attack against our country, then they might think twice if they knew we would retaliate with nuclear weapons. And that is after all the point of a nuclear deterent, making other people think twice about attacking our country.
Of course, you have to have the political will to fight back and that is something that our country has to be willing to do.
Therefore, it is in my opinion very important that we have the ability to fight back should we be attacked. A nuclear deterrent is an important aspect in our defence of this country and should not be given up lightly.
So lets consider the costs aspect of a nuclear deterrent! I understand that it will cost a fair amount of money to have new trident missile subs. However, should a number of these new countries like North Korea or Iran get nuclear weapons with launch capabilities to reach the UK, then I for one would feel safer knowing that we have a way of fighting back. It might make other countries think twice about attacking us. After all the cost of repairing London or Manchester would be no doubt much greater (both in money and in human life terms) than the trident subs.
In conclusion therefore, nuclear subs and missiles good! Nuclear deterrent could still work against state sponsored terrorism and we should keep them. Hope you enjoyed reading this review.
Summary: Nuclear Deterent must be kept.
|
Last comments:
 |
- 18/03/07 Not convincing. Your conclusion that there hasn't been a nuclear war because we had nuclear weapons and they acted as a deterrent is dubious in the extreme. That they haven't ever been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is more because doing so would have served no purpose and would have harmed the perpetrators as much as the victims. The after-effects of Chernobyl proves that. Besides, our treaties with the USA means that Britain is debarred from ever using its nuclear weapons without their express permission anyway.
Do all of those hundreds of countries who don't have nuclear weapons feel that the only way to secure their safety is to acquire them? Absolutely not.
One thing nuclear weapons will never do is solve the problem of international terrorism. That is likely to be the greatest threat we will face from now on. When the next bomb is exploded on the London Underground, who are you going to nuke?
No, nuclear weapons are an ineffective total waste of money that could be put to far better use. |
 |
- 18/03/07 NO |
 |
- 18/03/07 I thnk we should keep what we have learnt ** just in case ** |
View all
4
comments
|
Deutschland 
España 
Italia 
France - 
