"It is a response which peace activists have predicted for years."
I don't think peace activists can quite claim credit as the only people predicting this. Our military strategists probably beat you to it. I certainly did.

I actually sleep better at night knowing that there are several metal cylinders under the sea that guarantee the destruction of any country that would decide to attack us. Anything to make them think twice before dropping a bomb on my house.

Ultimately, where weapons are concerned, it really is just about using basic common sense. If you can have the ability to make the situation so that you have the weapons and the other guys doesn’t, then put simply:: why not?

Anything else would be pretty stupid. If people are really honest with themselves, how many would turn up at a gunfight and let the other guy have a gun for “fair play”?
When push comes to shove, I’m pretty sure you’d be dropping your arguments in a bat of an eyelid.

If Churchill decided to let Hitler have his weapons and started discarding his own we would all be singing fascist songs right now.

max's argument above is the same as the US 'everybody carry a gun for self defense'. Or that everyone should carry a knife for 'self defense' as many young people in the uk do. That is the logic of your argument and it's dangerously stupid.

That's why.

Im struggling to convert your analogies into exact policies requirements on weapon capabilities of various countries.

I think you are saying:
--> reduce our weapon capabilities

But i think you may also believe that we should:
--> Let other countries who's governments are not saying nice things about us (N Korea + Iran etc) to increase their weapon capabilities

Please clarify

I struggle to think of a country which has wanted to destroy us since 1945. While Max may sleep more soundly in his or her bed, that does not mean that we are any safer.

Having nuclear missiles did not deter Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands, so they don't deter small wars either.

There are almost certainly groups of individuals who do wish to destroy us. However, they do not represent a threat to the life of the nation. They are no more deterred by us having nuclear weapons than Galtieri and his junta were.

Well there was the threat of Russian tanks rolling into Europe. About the only thing that stopped that happening was the deterrent that Nato had --- hence the prelonged cold war. That was one big Deterrant and it did work. I think Russia were pretty serious about things back then considering the level of the cuba missile crisis. Something that would have suicidal for America to let happen.

I realise things "seem ok now" and we are under no direct threat. But you've got to consider 10-20years down the road. What has happened before can and will happen again.

There were plenty of people who assured everyone that Hitler wouldn't go beyond Poland. They were absolutely adamant. How wrong were they. I think it is a bit irresponsible to just "assume" that we will never be under a national threat.

I'm not advocated bomb dropping or war. But i've heard some speeches like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's to his own people and he certainly has made his feelings about us perfectly clear. Thats not being prejudiced. Its just listening to the words that come out of his mouth and thinking "You really don't like us do you"

So, 20 years from now with our shrewd decision making. Could our children be saying something like this: "please don't invade us - we are nice people Mr. Hitler"

I don't think we should get rid of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, we should make full use of them to wipe out at least 80% of the world's population. That will help mitigate our carbon emissions and, at the same time, cool the planet with a nuclear winter. The radioactive fallout from the bombs, combined with toxic, mutagenic dust from "depleted" uranium weapons, will help keep the world's population in check for millennia to come (through cancer, leukaemia, birth defects and transgenerational genetic damage).

The global renaissance in nuclear power will also help in this regard (so say my mates Mandy and Ed, and that frog Nicolas), as well as providing every country with the enriched uranium, plutonium, tritium and other radioactive isotopes it needs to manufacture its own nuclear arsenal, so that their (surviving) citizens can go to bed at night safe in the knowledge that their government has the power to kill millions more people at the drop of a hat.

(This post is generously sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, DBERR, DECC, HRH The Duke of York, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Serco, Jacobs Engineering Group, Babcock Marine, Rolls Royce, Areva, Urenco, the Illuminati and campaign group the Taxwasters' Alliance.)

>Well there was the threat of Russian tanks rolling into Europe. About the only thing that stopped that happening was the deterrent that Nato had --- hence the prelonged cold war. That was one big Deterrant and it did work. I think Russia were pretty serious about things back then considering the level of the cuba missile crisis. Something that would have suicidal for America to let happen.


If you were to read Noam Chomskys book 'Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance' then you would realise how serious that threat was. The US navy started depth-bombing a USSR nuclear armed submarine, and the order was issued for a nuclear response. That would have resulted in a massive, over-whelming nuclear response. That would have killed every human and most animals.


The only reason that didn't happen, that we are here to discuss that, is because a USSR submarine officer disobeyed orders and refused to fire. That man is an anarchist, a criminal, and a hero who genuinely saved the world.

>I realise things "seem ok now" and we are under no direct threat. But you've got to consider 10-20years down the road. What has happened before can and will happen again.

You are wrong. The nuclear threat has increased since then. Are you aware of the American Federation of Scientists 'nuclear clock' - we are as close as we have ever been to armageddon. It is not down the road, it is tapping at our door. Don't answer that toll.

>There were plenty of people who assured everyone that Hitler wouldn't go beyond Poland.

You mean Czechoslovakia surely.

>They were absolutely adamant. How wrong were they.

I personally think of Chamberlain as a decent man whose deception bought Britian some time to catch up with Hitlers war-machine. But the only reason I am responding to you seriously, respectfully and in depth is that you acklnlowedge Hitler and his Nazis were the enemy - that if nothing else differentiates your arguments from the BNP whose members celebrate the slaughter of British troops by the Totenkopf SS, who slaughtered British prisoners but who are celebrated by the BNP.

>I think it is a bit irresponsible to just "assume" that we will never be under a national threat.

We are under threat, from our current present 'Rent-a-Politician' sell-outs.

>I'm not advocated bomb dropping or war. But i've heard some speeches like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's to his own people and he certainly has made his feelings about us perfectly clear. Thats not being prejudiced. Its just listening to the words that come out of his mouth and thinking "You really don't like us do you"

You have been listening to false translations by our current government. In truth, ordinary Iranians are far more pro-English than ordinary French. HP sauce is a prized commodity in Iran. The people there love us. Plus the French who hate us have nukes already. If you are going to resort to ancient history then I suggest you nuke Agincourt.

Thanks fro the corrections. My history isn't precise.

People generally don't agree with much of what i think or say. Bu't I often find these same people are the ones that say they have suffered or been a victim of one thing or another (eg. many are currently saying they have been victims of "irresponsible lending").

So i may not know history 100%, but I am very gifted at not being a victim or a mug. I have always been very good at spotting liars, exploiters and cheaters; and ensuring that people are unable to screw me over through preventative measures and my wits rather than relying on fate and luck.

A big part of this is not having a victim mentality. Which is really my whole point. To discard our weapons and rely on flower power for defence is setting us up for being a victim. If the opportunity is there, it is better to ensure we have the weapons and the other guys don't. You don't let other people get weapons in the same way that you don't let other have the power to screw you over on finances.

>> You are wrong. The nuclear threat has increased since then......
I was talking about us (the UK / europe). Our country is pretty safe at the moment.

>> You have been listening to false translations by our current government.
I can't find any reference to that. However, i do realise the Iranian "people" are quite nice. I was actually looking at going skiing there at one point (yes they do have a resort)

>> We are under threat, from our current present 'Rent-a-Politician' sell-outs.
I'm going to agree with you there. But would like to expand and say that the biggest threat from politicians in my eye is incompetence. Politicians are rarely "qualified" to do the work. They gain the job through a popularity contest (voting). This is like you or I getting a job because we are "popular" rather than being based on "ability". There are many incompetent managers in business who get the job because they can ass lick and talk the talk. Politicans are exactly the same.

Are you the same max who was venting your spleen at the Chilean anarchist who was accidentally killed recently by his own bomb?

So small bombs used strategically against the state are bad, but ones that are several orders of magnitude larger and can kill hundreds of thousands of people in an instant are fine?

I'd trust an anarchist with a bomb way before I would trust any politicians or state military with one.

>A big part of this is not having a victim mentality. Which is really my whole point.

I fully agree. There are two types of people who have victim mentalities, victims and bullies.

>To discard our weapons and rely on flower power for defence is setting us up for being a victim. If the opportunity is there, it is better to ensure we have the weapons and the other guys don't. You don't let other people get weapons in the same way that you don't let other have the power to screw you over on finances.

I disagree. I loathe hippies as much as the next man but I'll come back to that point later.

>> You are wrong. The nuclear threat has increased since then......
>I was talking about us (the UK / europe). Our country is pretty safe at the moment.

Safety evaporates in an instant. There are about 30 countries in the world could have more nuclear tipped missiles than we have in months. Plus we have a huge military that is totally dependent on oil we just don't have.

>> You have been listening to false translations by our current government.
>I can't find any reference to that.

Here is one reference from Indymedia:
 http://www0.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2007/02/362612.html?c=on
"Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting a statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", just as had the Shah's regime in Iran."

It is like an 1960's British leader calling for the end of the Soviet Union, the regime, it isn't a threat to nuke them, just an opposition to their rulers and policies. I think Iranian rulers have every right to hate Israel, and I think Israeli rulers have ever right to hate Iran, but the proper place for aggression is on the football pitch, not the nuclear arena. Put down the guns guys! That means you too Israel, including the gun in your sock. Including that other gun in the other sock.

>However, i do realise the Iranian "people" are quite nice. I was actually looking at going skiing there at one point (yes they do have a resort)

I know. My lover was returning there to visit her family, and I said 'I'll come with you, I'd love to see the countryside and meet your family'. She said 'You can't, they will kill us'. I'm not great at meeting parents and expect the worst but I still had to ask 'Your parents will kill us?' 'No, silly, my family would love you. The mullahs will kill us'. Oh.

>> We are under threat, from our current present 'Rent-a-Politician' sell-outs.
I>'m going to agree with you there. But would like to expand and say that the biggest threat from politicians in my eye is incompetence. Politicians are rarely "qualified" to do the work. They gain the job through a popularity contest (voting). This is like you or I getting a job because we are "popular" rather than being based on "ability". There are many incompetent managers in business who get the job because they can ass lick and talk the talk. Politicans are exactly the same.

Exactly. We are constantly selected for obedience and compliance from an early age, and the people who seek power over others tend to be the least suitable people to have power. Brown-nosers, sell-outs and power hungry psychopaths. Mostly.
We could try and select better people to have power, for sure that would help, but better yet is to limit the power anyone else has over us. That's the fundamentals of anarchism, opposing power where you see it. You're almost an anarchist already. The only stumbling block is you saying we should have weapons the other person doesn't. An anarchist would say the same rules apply. If he has a gun, then I get a gun. A female anarchist would then point out, 'Okay, neither of you should have guns because you might aim badly and kill me or the kids, so have knives instead'. Both think, 'Okay, I can kill him with a knife'. Then another female anarchist comes along and says 'So why not just fight without weapons'? Both think, 'Yeah, I can still take him unarmed'. And then a third female anarchist comes along and says 'Look, that is a bit pathetic, why don't you put on some shorts and try to impress us on the football pitch'.

And that, my friend, is why soldiers are paid far less than professional footballers.