why don't anyone question Britains nuklear arseal?

For what reason are this nation alowed to possess atomic wapons?

*According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: "…both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Are there any good reasons what so ever that Britain should possess a nuklear arsenal?

UK have signed the NPT like most states, but have they even made one small attempt to disarm ?
Seams to me that their aspiration to achieve such weapons was some sort of compensation for loss of colonies they had 50-70 years ago.

No. For the West during the Cold War era having three nuclear-armed powers was a huge advantage. To wage and win a non-nuclear war against Europe, Moscow would have to ensure three different countries would not melt Moscow. It was an pretty-well insolvable problem.

For most of the time that nuclear weapons have been available, the UK economy has ranked in the top five, and is now a significant part of the European economy which is larger than that of the US.

Given the proximity of the West’s greatest foe and the size of economy, it is hardly surprising that the UK would have nuclear weaponry and not rely solely on protection from the US.

For decades the US has put a good case that if EU nations want US support in defence, those EU nations must make a significant contribution themselves, and it’s a fair point.

I would suggest that the argument that EU nations continue to make a significant contribution for their own defence instead of rely on the US taxpayer is still a valid one today.

Since we have the non-proliferation treaty, it means that other EU countries, who almost certainly have the technology, are not really in a position to indulge themselves of nuclear weaponry so it falls to the UK(and France) to maintain its deterrant on their behalf.

The reality is that with, or without nuclear weapons, we are a very important target for Russian weapons, and will remain so until their weapons are disposed of, now why don’t you tell me why the UK should not be so armed?

(its nuclear by the way, we are not children here with the spelling levels of children)

Well, to answer the question of: for what reason are this nation allowed to possess atomic (nuklear arseal) wapons, even though UK have signed the NPT… and their aspiration to achieve such weapons was some sort of compensation for loss of colonies

The United Kingdom became a signatory in 1968. The UK had a workable nuke as early as 1952… As such, it is one of the Nuclear-Weapon States, which are allowed to have nuclear weapons.

This is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Your first quasi-quote isn’t quite there.

What is, is:

Pay special attention to the classification of certain states as “nuclear-weapon States” as those are allowed to have nukes.

Article VI states:

Earlier this year, for instance, Britain called for negotiations on stopping the production of new bomb making materials fulfilling its obligation of “perusing negotiations… relating to the cessations of the nuclear arms race.”
Again, pay special attention to the fact that there is not even a suggestion of a time limit placed upon the NWS’s as to when they’d have to pursue such negotiations.

The NPT does state that one of its desires is

But, yet again, note that it is a desire and not one of the articles, and there is also no ‘due date’ attached.

Notice, in addition to the NPT specifically allowing for nuclear-weapons states, differentiates between “general and complete disarmament”, and says that a treaty for “general and complete disarmament” should be negotiated. Not that complete disarmament should be carried out without a negotiated treaty. Nor does it set any time frame for the Nuclear-Weapon States to initiate, conduct, or conclude those negotiations, merely that it is this obligation at some point in time. As the NPT has been extended indefinitely, if the NWS’s don’t fulfill that provision for 10,000 years, they’d still be in compliance. Or at least, not in material breach.

The main point of the non proliferation treaty is non proliferation, which is mandatory, and a secondary/tertiary/what-have-you point is an eventual negotiated treaty on “general and complete disarmament”. Which is not temporally fixed and is dependent on negotiations, not unilateral action.

The 1996 Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament states:

Britain has ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as set out in item (a).

As the PONNPD calls for “immediate commencement and early conclusion” of “negotiations on a non-discriminatory and universally applicable convention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”… it is certainly worth pointing out that as long as there are rogue states like North Korea, there cannot be a negotiated universally applicable convention. If NK wouldn’t negotiate along those lines, and/or wouldn’t be bound by such a negotiation, then there cannot be a “universally applicable convention”.

The UK cannot complete this provision, as such.

(c) is still covered under the statute on a negotiated "general and complete disarmament " and does not have the same “immediate commencement and early conclusion” provision.

The PONNPD, however, explicitly recognizers that "Nuclear disarmament is substantially facilitated by the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States ". However, as of 1994, a year before the PONNPD, North Korea, for example, had a program that was still causing international tensions, making the facilitation of nuclear disarmament a bit more difficult. Although even without that, there is no material breach.
It also sort of goes without saying that during the cold war, the UK had a very valid reason for wanting a nuclear deterrent that had nothing to do with the loss of their colonies earlier.

Additionally, Britain has made some significant cuts in warhead arsenal over the years.
But it has also been argued, for instance, that by updating its missile delivery systems (Trident –> Polaris), the UK violated the spirit but not the letter of the NPT.

All in all, the question really rests on an interpretations on the time frame, nature, and comprehensiveness of negotiations for general and disarmament. Some believe it should be sooner rather than later. Some rather later than sooner. Some believe it should be immediate. Some believe that as long as there is a credible need for a nuclear deterrent, and world peace has not broken out, the Nuclear-States can maintain some of their weapons.
You have to realize that this is a high stakes game of Lawyerball, and TBTB specifically crafted it to allow wiggle room. Lots of wiggle room.

All that being said, the UK is not in material breach of the NPT.
Hope that answers your question.

And there I was all set to say: Molon labe. :stuck_out_tongue:

Are they really?

Arent they suppose to get rid of them or at least work toward that goal? And have they even moved one inch toward that goal since 1968?

We’ve reduced the number of warheads on our submarines, and reduced the number of submarines cruising the oceans at any one time. We’ve also disbanded the RAF V-bomber deterrant. So, yes, there have been serious reductions.

I don’t think the UK will ever be without nuclear weapons (at least in my lifetime). There is no such thing as sovereignty without a nuclear arsenal.

Ayieee, it’s catching!

“In its warhead arsenal.”
Yeeeesh. Sleep would be good.

Sure there is. There are many sovereign nations, and not many with nukes. Now, when push comes to shove and the ravening hordes are at your gates, it’s much easier to retain sovereignty if you have nukes. But there is certainly sovereignty without nuclear weapons.

Has any other country?

Why are you so obsessed with the UK when at least six other countries also have nukes and at least two others have publicly admitted that they want to get them and one of them is collecting the material like a hidden imam possessed?

(Brazil’s the other, in case you wondered).

Yes, but y’all still have that boomer sharing the name of a ship that blew up at harbor, killing most of its crew. Should HMS Vanguard choose to emulate its predecessor, it can add fallout to the mess this time.

For reasons I can’t fully articulate, and don’t expect anyone else to really share, this bothers me far more than the idea of the UK having a nuclear arsenal.

Sailors, superstitious? Why would you say that?

This is also a strong argument for other nations to create a nuclear arsenal

I shall tell you
We all have heard several critical discussions about American, Russian, Israeli, Iranian, Korean, Iraqi etc. nuclear arsenal over the years, but not one debate (or a sentence) about the British nuclear arsenal.

Why is this? - when UK is perhaps the nuclear power that nead nukes least

I want to raise a question about UKs nuclear arsenal and why they (17 years after the cold war) still have them

Yeah. And a good reason for current nuclear powers from keeping them from obtaining them.

There are many sovereign nations that could be invaded at a superpower’s whim. Iraq was one example. No nation is stupid enough to try to fuck with a nuclear power, that’s the whole point behind having them. Why do you think Iran so desperately wants them?

Although perhaps sovereignty was the wrong word.

For what reasons does France need nuclear weapons more than the UK? I can’t even see how your argument goes. Russia is slowly slipping back into a dictatorship, on the sly, and you want the closest nuclear powers to disband their arsenal?

Iran (not as yet), Korea and Iraq do not have nuclear arsenals.

You forgot France.

Using your bizarro logic about who needs and doesn’t need nukes, the only country under a genuine and persistant threat of annihilation from a dozen or so countries is Israel. Perhaps that’s the only country that genuinely needs to have nuclear weapons and all the others should disarm.

Why do you hate Britain?

I completely forgot about the Pakistan-India danse macabre, so maybe they’re also fully justified in retaining their nukes.

The Jihad within India is also starting to gather steam so things should become quite interesting in that part of Asia during the next few decades. :smiley:

Iraq, no… but NK set off a low kiloton nuke in a test back in 2006, IIRC. Now, I haven’t been following the news WRT Korea all that closely, did I miss something in the last year? NK most likely has other nukes, and hasn’t given them up yet. Have they? If so, would you please help me clear up my ignorance?

And, just because it seems to fit in with the OP’s posts, somehow… Kenya and lions.
Why sharks obviously need nukes. And frickin’ laser beams on their heads, too.

let’s stick to uk in this thread since their nukes never are under any form of discussion

[

](http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76news03.htm)[

](http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/EndUKNucWeapons_NL28.htm)[

](http://www.cnduk.org/pages/about.html)[

](UK 'should ban nuclear arms' | UK news | The Guardian)

That’s some strange definition of “never” you’ve got.