h a l f b a k e r yAssume a hemispherical cow.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A few people in the United Kingdom are deciding (or have decided) whether or not to renew our nuclear capability (since our old nuclear missiles are to pass their 'best before date' at some point in the future.)
The thing is, the UK doesn't really need nuclear weapons. For the forseeable future, the
only people who could ever conceiveably 'nuke' us are crackpot dictators (or terrorists). If we were to be thus attacked, it doesn't really seem very nice for us to bomb the unfortunate citizens likely suffering under the given dictator. However, it the logic runs that the existence of our own nukes will deter said dictator from the initial attack.
So, to the idea: Rather than the vast expense to, and international imbalance of, a few nations having a nuclear force, I propose that the United Nations commissions its own nuclear force*, which is to be made AUTOMATICALLY available as appropriate to any nation that is bombed (with a nuclear weapon), so that a retaliation can take place. That the UN holds this capability means that even a completely obliterated nation could make a sizeable response. Of course, it is to be hoped that such will never have to be used. But it means that every nation has the fortune and security of a nuclear deterrent. It is then to be hoped that the attraction of acquiring nuclear weapons would be much decreased, and ultimately one might hope that only the UN would possess nuclear weapons, which could then be gradually scaled down. Armageddon avoided in time for lunch..
*Or the US and others donate some of their own sizeable arsenals.
Footnote: Developing a nuclear capability can also be argued to provide a nation with i)diplomatic clout and ii)increased economic activity. I would suggest that the first is just unfair, and the loss of the second a small price to pay. Apologies if this idea has had a previous airing.
Ever vigilant
http://www.york.cun...fun/thumbhorses.jpg
[normzone, Jul 17 2006]
[link]
|
| |
I realise this isn't the most important issue, but who would get to make, maintain, store and launch these wepons. |
|
| |
Cos if it comes to nuclear war why no just nuke UN HQ (solve everyones problems) |
|
| |
Boysparks, I take your point; but I don't see why a UN-held nuclear deterrent should be any less effective than that held by any particular nation. The key is to ensure that all necessary procedures are prepared in advance..
Vaccumac, I imagined that the nukes might be stored, like the UK's, on submarines perpetually navigating the globe. |
|
| |
Dr. Bob, your point is well made.. It might well be simpler for a wealthy, conveniently unpatriotic and benevolent if somewhat meglomaniacal philanthropist to acquire the nuclear arsenal. Perhaps Bill Gates. Or the IKEA guy. Heck, the Swiss could do it. I'd trust them. |
|
| |
[I imagined that the nukes might be stored, like the UK's, on submarines perpetually navigating the globe.] |
|
| |
A UN submarine force? No. |
|
| |
Instead, think of the effectiveness of Genghis Khans pony-riding forces. |
|
| |
There should be a force spread across the world, consisting of men and women who own horses, and are ready at a moments notice to converge on nations that have incurred the wrath of the United Nations. |
|
| |
Although I am in favor of the international community having more power and a more demanding voice, I don't think that alowing the UN to decide who or what gets bombed is a good idea. Any nation whithin the UN that is being debated about becoming a victim to its wrath is likely to cause some sort of schism within and may, ultimately, result in a global conflict. |
|
| |
Being the American cynic that I am, I also don't approve of anything that makes the UN think they are anything more than a part of the US's foriegn policy. |
|
| |
(Said to offend; not necessarily my view on the world) |
|
| |