# why don't anyone question Britains nuklear arseal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2007, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137 "2007-12-07T08:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/1 "2007-12-07T08:05:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/2 "2007-12-07T08:30:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/3 "2007-12-07T09:31:58Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/4 "2007-12-07T09:44:20Z")
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.](http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm) The UK had a workable nuke as early as [1952](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr06/FactSheet5.pdf).. 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](http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm). Your first quasi-quote isn’t quite there. What is, is: > [@](#): > > Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States, Pay special attention to the classification of certain states as “nuclear-weapon States” as those are allowed to have nukes. Article VI states: > [@](#): > > Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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. Earlier this year, for instance, [Britain called for negotiations on stopping the production of new bomb making materials](http://radio.un.org/story.asp?NewsID=6359) 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 > [@](#): > > to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, 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](http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/prin_obj.htm) states: > [@](#): > > 1. Nuclear disarmament is substantially facilitated by the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States which have prevailed following the end of the cold war. The undertakings with regard to nuclear disarmament as set out in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons should thus be fulfilled with determination. In this regard, the nuclear-weapon States reaffirm their commitment, as stated in article VI, to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. > > 2. The achievement of the following measures is important in the full realization and effective implementation of article VI, including the programme of action as reflected below: Britain [has ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty](http://www.atomicarchive.com/Treaties/Treaty19.shtml) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/5 "2007-12-07T09:53:04Z")
And there I was all set to say: _Molon labe_. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/6 "2007-12-07T09:56:36Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] 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.](http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm) The UK had a workable nuke as early as [1952](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr06/FactSheet5.pdf).. As such, it is one of the Nuclear-Weapon States, which are allowed to have nuclear weapons. [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/7 "2007-12-07T10:08:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/8 "2007-12-07T10:14:55Z")
Ayieee, it’s catching! [QUOTE=FinnAgain] Additionally, Britain _has_ made some significant cuts in warhead arsenal over the years. [/QUOTE] “In its warhead arsenal.” Yeeeesh. Sleep would be good. > [@Dominic Mulligan](#): > > There is no such thing as sovereignty without a nuclear arsenal. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/9 "2007-12-07T10:15:26Z")
[QUOTE=Wildfire\*\*MM] 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? [/QUOTE] 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). ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/10 "2007-12-07T10:22:51Z")
Yes, but y’all still have that boomer sharing the name of a [ship that blew up at harbor](http://www.gwpda.org/naval/vanguard.htm), killing most of its crew. Should _[HMS Vanguard](http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2440)_ 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? ---
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/11 "2007-12-07T10:25:22Z")
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan] 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. [/QUOTE] This is also a strong argument for other nations to create a nuclear arsenal ---
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/12 "2007-12-07T10:31:19Z")
[QUOTE=Aquila Be] 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). [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/13 "2007-12-07T10:41:21Z")
> [@](#): > > This is also a strong argument for other nations to create a nuclear arsenal Yeah. And a good reason for current nuclear powers from keeping them from obtaining them. > [@](#): > > There are many sovereign nations, and not many with nukes. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/14 "2007-12-07T10:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Why is this? - when UK is perhaps the nuclear power that nead nukes least 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? ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/15 "2007-12-07T10:44:33Z")
[QUOTE=Wildfire\*\*MM] 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 [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/16 "2007-12-07T10:51:58Z")
Why do you hate Britain? ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/17 "2007-12-07T10:53:08Z")
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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/18 "2007-12-07T10:54:39Z")
[QUOTE=Aquila Be] Korea and Iraq do not have nuclear arsenals. [/quote] 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.](http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/) [Why sharks obviously need nukes. And frickin’ laser beams on their heads, too.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaOWJxEr3U0) ---
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/19 "2007-12-07T10:58:08Z")
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan] 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? [/QUOTE] let’s stick to uk in this thread since their nukes never are under any form of discussion ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137/20 "2007-12-07T11:07:17Z")
[QUOTE=Wildfire\*\*MM] let’s stick to uk in this thread since their nukes never are under any form of discussion [/QUOTE] [ > [@](#): > > If Britain takes seriously its “unequivocal undertaking… to accomplish the total elimination of [its] nuclear arsenal” as pledged in May 2000, as part of its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), why is the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) holding open the option to design and make new nuclear weapons for its arsenal? ]([http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76news03.htm](http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76news03.htm))[ > [@](#): > > The UK government should decide and announce that the UK will not acquire a replacement for Trident when its operational life expires about 20 years from now. ]([http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/EndUKNucWeapons\_NL28.htm](http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/EndUKNucWeapons_NL28.htm))[ > [@](#): > > CND campaigns non-violently to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and to create genuine security for future generations. > > We aim to… > > Change Government policies to bring about the elimination of British nuclear weapons as a major contribution to global abolition. ]([http://www.cnduk.org/pages/about.html](http://www.cnduk.org/pages/about.html))[ > [@](#): > > The government should immediately announce that Britain will abandon nuclear weapons when the Trident missile system reaches the end of its life, a group of eminent scientists say today. ]([UK 'should ban nuclear arms' | UK news | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,803283,00.html)) That’s some strange definition of “never” you’ve got. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anyone-question-britains-nuklear-arseal/429137.md?page=2)