Sovereign State vs Federal State, Which is bestist? Options

[blackdog]

I wonder if they are stored in West Berkshire, we aren't very good at counting important things..

They are manufactured in West Berkshire - perhaps that's why the number is a bit hazey?

[Simon Kirby]

Yes I think the UK could get rid of its arsenal without affecting its security, but it seems unfair to leave it to others to give us a nuclear shield; however, it's that 'could' word (in bold type) that undermines your argument. Replace it with 'have', then you might have a better argument, but who's to say the world would be more peaceful with larger multilateral conventional armies carrying no nuclear threat.

I don't want a nuclear shield. I don't want any conventional armies. I don't want the army parading through my town, I don't want children going to school in combat fatigues, I don't want military parades celebrating my ceremonial monarch's birthday, I don't want battles and wars remembered, I don't want army recruitment booths at country fairs, and I don't want remembrance services normalising military aggression. I choose to believe that there will be a time when wars no longer happen. That time's not yet here, and the UK probably still needs armed services and I certainly mean no disrespect to serving and retired service personnel, but I want peace in the world and we'll only start on that journey if we begin to think of war as repugnant and unconscionable.

[Andy Capp]

I don't want a nuclear shield. I don't want any conventional armies. I don't want the army parading through my town, I don't want children going to school in combat fatigues, I don't want military parades celebrating my ceremonial monarch's birthday, I don't want battles and wars remembered, I don't want army recruitment booths at country fairs, and I don't want remembrance services normalising military aggression. I choose to believe that there will be a time when wars no longer happen. That time's not yet here, and the UK probably still needs armed services and I certainly mean no disrespect to serving and retired service personnel, but I want peace in the world and we'll only start on that journey if we begin to think of war as repugnant and unconscionable.

We already do, but others think differently and while that's the case we cannot abandon the 'military shield' altogether.

When at peace, prepare for war.

[je suis Charlie]

I don't want a nuclear shield. I don't want any conventional armies. I don't want the army parading through my town, I don't want children going to school in combat fatigues, I don't want military parades celebrating my ceremonial monarch's birthday, I don't want battles and wars remembered, I don't want army recruitment booths at country fairs, and I don't want remembrance services normalising military aggression. I choose to believe that there will be a time when wars no longer happen. That time's not yet here, and the UK probably still needs armed services and I certainly mean no disrespect to serving and retired service personnel, but I want peace in the world and we'll only start on that journey if we begin to think of war as repugnant and unconscionable.

Yeah, and I want unicorns to poop teacakes, ain't gonna happen though.

[Simon Kirby]

We already do, but others think differently and while that's the case we cannot abandon the 'military shield' altogether.

When at peace, prepare for war.

No, I don't think we're quite at the stage where we could demobilise the armed forces, and that's not what I've suggested, but we don't need Trident and we don't need the protection of any other nuclear deterrent either. We should however keep our armed in the UK and begin the withdrawal from our colonial territories. A Federated States of Europe should for example make it easier for the UK to relinquish control of Gibraltar.

[Andy Capp]

No, I don't think we're quite at the stage where we could demobilise the armed forces, and that's not what I've suggested, but we don't need Trident and we don't need the protection of any other nuclear deterrent either. We should however keep our armed in the UK and begin the withdrawal from our colonial territories. A Federated States of Europe should for example make it easier for the UK to relinquish control of Gibraltar.

I feel that the west removing its nuclear weapons would raise the the chances of more military conflict.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Yes I think the UK could get rid of its arsenal without affecting its security, but it seems unfair to leave it to others to give us a nuclear shield; however, it's that 'could' word (in bold type) that undermines your argument. Replace it with 'have', then you might have a better argument, but who's to say the world would be more peaceful with larger multilateral conventional armies carrying no nuclear threat.

Perhaps the US should give all of its citizens Nuclear Weapons. May stop them killing each other with guns.😞

[On the edge]

No, I don't think we're quite at the stage where we could demobilise the armed forces, and that's not what I've suggested, but we don't need Trident and we don't need the protection of any other nuclear deterrent either. We should however keep our armed in the UK and begin the withdrawal from our colonial territories. A Federated States of Europe should for example make it easier for the UK to relinquish control of Gibraltar.

Full federation would also quickly solve the Irish and Scottish problem as well as the Spanish issue with the Basques. It would also eliminate the tax havens we have. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea! On the defence issue, federation would naturally provide a far better deterrent, in military concerns size does matter. Nuclear weapons worry me greatly, but even more now we as a nation have lost our intellectual nuclear prowess and capability - these weapons are even more dangerous when you don't understand them.

[On the edge]

No, I don't think we're quite at the stage where we could demobilise the armed forces, and that's not what I've suggested, but we don't need Trident and we don't need the protection of any other nuclear deterrent either. We should however keep our armed in the UK and begin the withdrawal from our colonial territories. A Federated States of Europe should for example make it easier for the UK to relinquish control of Gibraltar.

Full federation would also quickly solve the Irish and Scottish problem as well as the Spanish issue with the Basques. It would also eliminate the tax havens we have. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea! On the defence issue, federation would naturally provide a far better deterrent, in military concerns size does matter. Nuclear weapons worry me greatly, but even more now we as a nation have lost our intellectual nuclear prowess and capability - these weapons are even more dangerous when you don't understand them.

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps the US should give all of its citizens Nuclear Weapons. May stop them killing each other with guns.😞

Good point TDH.

[Simon Kirby]

I feel that the west removing its nuclear weapons would raise the the chances of more military conflict.

I'm not talking about the west, I'm talking about Blighty. Who are you worried about, the Cornish?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I'm not talking about the west, I'm talking about Blighty. Who are you worried about, the Cornish?

Putin. Until we get a none aggressive Russian leader who is not fighting bear's (or Photoshopped) doing so and invading Crimea and the Ukraine and bombing Syria (a lot and much more indiscriminately than the west) then I'm afraid we still need them.😞 Not particularly happy about it but a necessary evil. In my view. Though Porten Down could kill us all anyway!!!!

[On the edge]

Putin. Until we get a none aggressive Russian leader who is not fighting bear's (or Photoshopped) doing so and invading Crimea and the Ukraine and bombing Syria (a lot and much more indiscriminately than the west) then I'm afraid we still need them.😞 Not particularly happy about it but a necessary evil. In my view. Though Porten Down could kill us all anyway!!!!

I think I'd go along with that, particularly the Photoshopped aside. Perhaps that's all we need; a few realistic photos........

[Simon Kirby]

I don't believe Russian aggression is being held in check by the UK's nuclear deterrent, and I guess we have to agree to disagree.

[On the edge]

I don't believe Russian aggression is being held in check by the UK's nuclear deterrent, and I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I should have made it clearer, I don't either; simply a poor attempt at irony!

I don't think Russian aggression is being held in check by our deterrent. Like it or not, we actually don't have any nuclear weapons anyway; the reality is that they are American designed, owned and operated. It's inconceivable we'd use them off our own bat; even if we knew how. If I, a simple Joe can work that out, it won't have escaped anyone else's notice. Frankly, that's an even bigger worry.

Having nuclear weapons in the UK for defence purposes is rather like letting your aggressive neighbour keep his semi starved Rottweilers in your home because you are worried the bloke at the end of the terrace might break in and nick your stamp album.

[Andy Capp]

Nukes aren't a defence mechanism insofar that they are are demonstration of an ability to reply. 'Star Wars' will do that and will be the thing that makes nuclear missiles redundant. That and submarine drones.

[Andy Capp]

Anyway, I regret this thread will 'remain' a futile nukes vs no-nukes debate.

[On the edge]

Anyway, I regret this thread will 'remain' a futile nukes vs no-nukes debate.😕

I suppose at the end of the day it simply comes down to how we see ourselves; do we really think we make much difference as individuals? Then, if we do, what is the optimum size of our control span? On the face if it, as far as we are concerned individually, a nation state or a federation - marginal if any difference.

The U.K. is a federation anyway. That hasn't stopped component parts arguing the toss. Argument doesn't happen over much in the US, but Canada has no inclination to join.

Arguably a federation is just a step to World government. So what, TTIP writ large. I'm not convinced that individually it will make much difference. We'll just end up giving allegiance to our region.

As for defence, presumably just like individual law breakers, there will always be serious dissent (unless we can be medically controlled) so potentially dissent will be in the form of terrorism. You don't need army for that, simply a robust Police force.

Big brother; that so bad? I suspect that's the real question.

[Andy Capp]

As for defence, presumably just like individual law breakers, there will always be serious dissent (unless we can be medically controlled) so potentially dissent will be in the form of terrorism. You don't need army for that, simply a robust Police force.

Our army is in effect a police force, under the control of a government.

[Biker1]

Anyway, I regret this thread will 'remain' a futile nukes vs no-nukes debate.

Simon started it in just post 3!!