PaulS wrote:With the martyrdom culture in Islamic states, that would be far too dangerous. MAD may not apply to Islamic countries, n which case we would be mad to allow them such a weapon.
It might be possible to see the Iraq invasion as martyrdom in a nation sense (playing rather loosley with language
) Logically, there is no way to know that MAD has 'kept the peace' since VJ day - all we know is that nobody has used such weapons again. That's it. I've always felt it was a convenient pretext for the West to pile up their weapons. Let's face it, a Trident's worth of nukes would wreak unimaginable destruction and we, let alone the US have rather more than one Trident's worth of missiles
The following was reported in 2003 and covered by The Acronym Institute:
House of Commonds wrote:Asked to clarify if the UK Government reserved the right to be the first to use weapons of mass destruction in war, Hoon replied: "...We maintain only a minimum nuclear deterrent, the purpose of which is to prevent war rather than fight it. As the Government has made clear on many occasions, we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence. As our overall strategy is to ensure uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the exact nature of our response, and thus to maintain effective deterrence, we do not define the exact circumstances under which we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law."25
In accordance with this doctrine, the UK would be prepared to use its nuclear weapons first. Inconsistent with the UK's security assurances to NPT parties enshrined in UNSC 984 (1995), this expression of doctrine would also appear consistent with retaining the option to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive attack against another state's WMD capability, if this was judged to represent a current and serious threat. Her Majesty's Government, however, maintains that this does not represent any change in UK nuclear doctrine.
It is true that the UK has traditionally reserved the right to use nuclear weapons first, but that had always been in the context of having first been attacked - or perhaps also been on the point of being attacked - by the numerically superior forces of the Warsaw Pact. What worries some commentators now is that UK doctrine could justify the early use of nuclear weapons on the basis of an intelligence assessment of what a 'rogue' state is believed to have hidden in an underground bunker.
Ronald Reagan, 1971 wrote:"For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean that they will be destroyed by nuclear weapons."
There is no evidence that those 'Eastern infidels' would be crazed enough to use these weapons, but it suits our purposes to believe it. Just as it suits our puposes to lie that Iraq had WMDs.
Any country owning nuclear weapons is mad in my book and logically, you cannot deter by threatening to use weapons you will never use. Everyone says that they only intend to use them in retaliation, except that as quoted by Hoon above "we do not define the exact circumstances under which we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law.
In accordance with this doctrine, the UK would be prepared to use its nuclear weapons first. "
It's absurd and cannot be explained in any sensible way. I don't know about anyone else, but Hoon's comments don't give me a nice warm glow...
