A new low for David Cameron's PMQs Options

[On the edge]

They have NATO. Anyway, look what happened to them in the last war.

Which war was that? I don't think they got involved with Iraq.

[Simon Kirby]

Which war was that? I don't think they got involved with Iraq.

Touché!

[je suis Charlie]

What a doofuss! You know very well I was referring to ww2, the big one, the big enchilada, etc etc. A proper war, everyone involved, nuclear weapons! A proper war.

[je suis Charlie]

Well,Michael Fallon agrees with me, quote;

“If you are going to have a deterrent, you have to be prepared to use it,” he said, adding that he hoped a Labour review into the future of Trident would take into consideration the views of what he described as moderate Labour opinion.

“If Labour maintains this new position against the deterrent, clearly they are a threat to national security because it means we would be less safe under a future Labour government."

“It’s extremely dangerous, it will undermine our alliances, weaken our standing in the world and would threaten our safety. It’s like making imitation rifles. Nuclear patrols would be pointless without nuclear weapons.”

He added that Trident was better able to protect the UK from unpredictable threats. No one had predicted the emergence of Islamic State, he said, and no one could be sure there would not be a nuclear threat in the next 30 years.

He expressed concern about Russia’s nuclear weapons programme, adding: “We are very concerned about nuclear weapons going to rogue states like North Korea.”

[On the edge]

So perhaps you could enlighten us. If Nuclear weapons are really the answer to guaranteeing national security, how come those nations which have suffered far worse than ourselves in past conflict don't have them?

[On the edge]

It seems to me we have a so far hidden issue with nuclear weapons. That is, what the rest of the World think. Most nation states, including the stable friendly ones, don't have nuclear weapons and look askance at nations that start to gather them.

Once the rest of the World sees that the UK no longer had the knowledge, skill or commercial ability to renew its fleet of nuclear power stations, I'm not convinced they'd continue to trust us with weapons.

[Simon Kirby]

Well,Michael Fallon agrees with me...

I'm sure he does, and I can't begin to express how appalled I am that British politicians continue to play on the fears of timid people to keep themselves in power.

But your argument is empty, you posit that Labour members who want to use nulclear weapons are "moderate" and yet you call other nations who want to use the threat of nuclear weapons as "rogue", but there is no empirical distinction between them - if you have nuclear weapons then you have to be prepared to use them, and there is nothing "moderate" in that position. "Talk softly and carry a big stick" - the counsel of bullies and tyrant through history. If the world is ever to be a peaceful secure place then nations are going to one day have to agree not to threaten war, and that will mean disarming - I would like to think that Britain could be the first nation to put its nuclear weapons beyond use and quit waving that big stick about like some fecktard on Jeremy Kyle.

[Biker1]

Unfortunately nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented.
Therefore two things would need to be done to remove their threat.
(Both of which are probably impossible.)

1. All nations that possess nuclear arms would have to remove and destroy them at exactly the same time.

2. Some sort of international process would need to be in place to ensure that none had been retained secretively and also that none were being produced.

As I have said, both impossible, therefore to unilaterally disarm would surely to some extent put that nations security in jeopardy?

[Andy Capp]

Nuclear weapons are so 20th century. I believe anyone that would use one is likely to be one that couldn't care if the recipient had any or not. Nuclear 'defence' is what is required: no point in a nuclear bomb if it goes off shortly after launch.

[Simon Kirby]

1. All nations that possess nuclear arms would have to remove and destroy them at exactly the same time.

Not true.

Militarily nothing at all would change were Blighty to unilaterally disarm. Our nuclear weapons did not deter the Argentinians from invading sovereign British territory, and did nothing to deter the terrorist atrocities of the IRA, and Blighty would not suddenly be any more susceptible to an invasion from some other nuclear state such as China, France, or America because they're already here!

2. Some sort of international process would need to be in place to ensure that none had been retained secretively and also that none were being produced.

You pre-suppose 1., but that's unfounded and so 2. also falls over. Disarming India and Pakistan would be more tricky and a process such as you suggest would be necessary in their case. However, I see no obstacle to any of China, America, Russia, or France unilaterally disarming. Israel might take some convincing, but then they also need to withdraw from occupied Palestine, and that just leaves North Korea and I'd prevail on China to use its influence and encourage the Americans to wind their neck in.

[je suis Charlie]

Do we have the bomb? Yes we do.

Has anybody tried to nuc us? No they haven't.

See? It works, doesn't it!

[Andy Capp]

Do we have the bomb? Yes we do.

Has anybody tried to nuc us? No they haven't.

See? It works, doesn't it!

The Isle of Man has no nukes and nobody has nuked them either.

[Simon Kirby]

I understand that people are scared of losing their nuclear bombs and if it didn't cost anything to keep them and it posed no danger to peace, health, and happiness then I'd have no problem at all but:

1. We can't afford £100billion, and
2. I wouldn't trust my politicians with paper scissors let alone weapons of mass destruction.

[On the edge]

Do we have the bomb? Yes we do.

Has anybody tried to nuc us? No they haven't.

See? It works, doesn't it!

Do we have tigers in the UK? Yes we do.

Do spray myself with Snake Oil which keeps tigers away. Yes I do.

Have I ever been attacked by a tiger? No I haven't.

See? It works, doesn't it!

PS - let me know if you'd like a bottle, only £75, genuine Snake Oil Substitute.

[je suis Charlie]

Do we have tigers in the UK? Yes we do.

Do spray myself with Snake Oil which keeps tigers away. Yes I do.

Have I ever been attacked by a tiger? No I haven't.

See? It works, doesn't it!

PS - let me know if you'd like a bottle, only £75, genuine Snake Oil Substitute.

Waste of money that, just sit on a park bench at midnight humming the national anthem and tearing the NWN into one inch squares. Always worked for me, never been eaten by a tiger and its free!

[je suis Charlie]

I understand that people are scared of losing their nuclear bombs and if it didn't cost anything to keep them and it posed no danger to peace, health, and happiness then I'd have no problem at all but:

1. We can't afford £100billion, and
2. I wouldn't trust my politicians with paper scissors let alone weapons of mass destruction.

Its the rest of the world I don't trust, even less so if we're made defenceless!

[On the edge]

Its the rest of the world I don't trust, even less so if we're made defenceless!

Being paranoid does at least mean knowing someone is thinking of you.

[On the edge]

I suspect we are in more nuclear danger from trigger happy Americans or errors made by the establishments on our doorstep.

[Andy Capp]

Its the rest of the world I don't trust, even less so if we're made defenceless!

No nukes doesn't mean defenceless; we can allocate more resources elsewhere. Like I said: nukes are 20th century; we have new threats these days: water, disease, digital comms.

[On the edge]

No nukes doesn't mean defenceless; we can allocate more resources elsewhere. Like I said: nukes are 20th century; we have new threats these days: water, disease, digital comms.

I think you are quite right, defence does not mean copying.