In Search Of A Compelling Argument
Whilst driving back from Reading this lunchtime I ended up listening to an interview with Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord (head of the Navy), on why the government is so determined to spend countless billions of pounds to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. (Tony Blair has promised that there will be a "full and frank debate" on the issue. This being the Dear Leader's favourite kind of debate - one in which he's already made up his mind and can therefore let everyone else shout themselves hoarse before doing what he wanted to anyway.)
His argument ran roughly as follows: "My view is that we are in an extremely dangerous, unpredictable and chaotic world. There are all sorts of pressures on energy, water, raw materials, mass migration, climate change. The one thing that I can predict absolutely is that we can't predict what's going to happen. [...] We have this weapon now. I think in that very, very dangerous world, I think it would be extremely foolhardy to give it up. [...] Now some people will say ah, well if it's a terror group, that won't apply. Well, yes, but I don't think that that's the only risk there is. Let's say that there was some sort of appalling attack with biological weapons to this country."
Excuse me?
Let's just take those in order, shall we?
Energy, water and raw materials: How exactly will nuclear weapons help with any of these? Is he seriously suggesting that we might want to point a load of missiles at France and say "pipe us your water or else"?
Mass migration: Huh? What does he want to do? Nuke Calais?
Climate change: You know what'd be good for fixing global warming? A nuclear winter!
Biological (or chemical) attack: Having already conceded that if (as is most likely) this was perpetrated by a terrorist organisation there'd be nobody to nuke (unless we really want to drop the Bomb on Saudi Arabia - I'm sure Ann Coulter would approve), this boils down to whether or not one considers the best response to mass murder to be an even greater act of mass murder. Assuming that democratic states would be unlikely to perpetrate such an attack, we're essentially talking about a totalitarian state like North Korea here. Given that in such a state the general population is powerless to influence their crackpot leader, exactly why would thousands of them deserve to die for the actions of said nutjob? Is Kim Jong Il really likely to give a damn? Of course, all this is somewhat beside the point in any case - the argument is being put that we need a nuclear deterrent, so if somebody attacks us that deterrent has already failed.
I'm sure there are some valid arguments in favour of retaining nuclear weapons in this country, but these are not those arguments.
His argument ran roughly as follows: "My view is that we are in an extremely dangerous, unpredictable and chaotic world. There are all sorts of pressures on energy, water, raw materials, mass migration, climate change. The one thing that I can predict absolutely is that we can't predict what's going to happen. [...] We have this weapon now. I think in that very, very dangerous world, I think it would be extremely foolhardy to give it up. [...] Now some people will say ah, well if it's a terror group, that won't apply. Well, yes, but I don't think that that's the only risk there is. Let's say that there was some sort of appalling attack with biological weapons to this country."
Excuse me?
Let's just take those in order, shall we?
Energy, water and raw materials: How exactly will nuclear weapons help with any of these? Is he seriously suggesting that we might want to point a load of missiles at France and say "pipe us your water or else"?
Mass migration: Huh? What does he want to do? Nuke Calais?
Climate change: You know what'd be good for fixing global warming? A nuclear winter!
Biological (or chemical) attack: Having already conceded that if (as is most likely) this was perpetrated by a terrorist organisation there'd be nobody to nuke (unless we really want to drop the Bomb on Saudi Arabia - I'm sure Ann Coulter would approve), this boils down to whether or not one considers the best response to mass murder to be an even greater act of mass murder. Assuming that democratic states would be unlikely to perpetrate such an attack, we're essentially talking about a totalitarian state like North Korea here. Given that in such a state the general population is powerless to influence their crackpot leader, exactly why would thousands of them deserve to die for the actions of said nutjob? Is Kim Jong Il really likely to give a damn? Of course, all this is somewhat beside the point in any case - the argument is being put that we need a nuclear deterrent, so if somebody attacks us that deterrent has already failed.
I'm sure there are some valid arguments in favour of retaining nuclear weapons in this country, but these are not those arguments.