The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionUK moves ahead on new nuclear weapons subs
by Joshua J. McElwee on May. 18, 2011
The government of the United Kingdom is moving forward with plans to build new nuclear weapons armed submarines, the BBC reports today.
Approximately $4.8 million has already been appropriated for the program, and, if plans don't change in the interim, the country should have its first new nuclear armed vessel in 2028, said UK Defense Secretary Liam Fox.
The decision to move forward with the burgeoning of the UK's nuclear deterrent comes almost exactly one month after Edinburgh, Scotland Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Scottish bishops' conference, called the country's nuclear weapons program "shameful."
Speaking during a 200-strong protest outside Faslane Naval Base, which is about 25 miles west of the city of Glasgow and is where the UK's trident submarines are based, O'Brien said April 16 that "it is not courageous of Britain to have these dreadful weapons of mass destruction. It is shameful to have them."
Said O'Brien: "If our Government wished to truly be courageous it would unilaterally give up its nuclear deterrent, giving the witness and impetus for other nations to do the same."
Josh writes, "the UK's
Josh writes, "the UK's nuclear deterrent"
Josh, dude, deterrent from WHAT exactly?
Soviet Union is toast, in case you had not heard.
What designated enemy now exists with territory large enough to smoke?
Deterrent, one of the preferred pretexts of the Nixon regime, now is not heard of anymore.
perhaps detergent?
OBRien declared "It is
OBRien declared "It is shameful to have them."
For the once courageous US Bishops, in the Challenge of Peace, it is also immoral to have them, and unjust.
Let's talk reality here.
Let's talk reality here. This is not going to go over well with a lot of people around here. Fr. Dear, close your eyes.
Sometime in the next 5 years, Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. They will also obtain long range missiles or buy and/or exchange for oil them from someone else (Russians, Chinese, N. Korea, whoever). At that point in time, they will be able to fire nuclear weapons at anyone in their range, or sell or give the missiles and weapons to anyone they wish. 99% of the nations of the world will be at their mercy. The US is not necessarily going to provide the nuclear umbrella to the rest of the world. Would it be in our national interest to bomb the Iranians if they bombed the Brits and then suffer retaliation by the Iranians?
When the day comes when the Iranians have both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, the Brits will not be able to wave a magic wand and make a Trident class sub appear and be armed with a functioning crew. The option of siting their missiles on land is a bad one because there is a real possibilty that the Iranian missiles will arrive before the Brits can make the decision to launch and go through the verification procedures built in to prevent a launch against a false threat or an invalid command. The Trident sub guarantees that whoever launches against the Brits will receive a full retaliatory strike, no matter what. As uncouth as Mutually Assured Destruction may be, it worked quite well until the fall of the USSR.
Granted, if an Iranian Ayatholla wants to blow up the planet to bring on the Hidden Imam, there won't be a thing anyone can do about it. But at least he will be guaranteed that he will not be around to hug him.
Cardinal O'Brien is already
Cardinal O'Brien is already living in another world--not this one. You do not unilaterally disarm on Earth.
Post new comment