72
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
72 points (95.0% liked)
United Kingdom
6699 readers
246 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think I prefer the Lib Dems and Labour (when they can get their act together) to the Greens. One thing I dislike about the Greens is this policy:
I think the UK should keep its nukes for now, given that we are threatened by Russia. In the future we could be threatened by China and even the US.
Giving up nukes sounds bad but is that single policy why you would rather vote for all other Labour policies?
Its an existential issue however.
Im certainly happier voting for them in local council elections
I wonder how all the other countries without nuclear weapons of mass destruction cope? Glad to live in the UK where we can kill millions at the push of a button.
I think the sad reality is that countries without nuclear weapons are at the mercy of nations with nuclear weapons. What would be gained if the UK and France, for example, were to get rid of their nukes? There's absolutely no chance that the US/Russia/China will get rid of theirs. So then those countries would have a massive amount of leverage over Europe.
I definitely hope nukes are not used. But the threat of vast destruction might be the only threat that the world's authoritarian leaders are afraid of. If those leaders are afraid of nothing then they could launch their own terrible weapons at civilians across the world.
And you think these countries (China - which hasn't been involved in military conflict for over 50 years - and Russia and ??) are secretly planning what? Invasion? Steal our women? Drive tanks through our front gardens? Eat our cats and dogs? Both those countries already own a great deal of property and investments here in the UK. People of China and Russia are like most of us: want peace. We're governed by madmen and arms dealers who want to make us feel frightened and insecure all the time.
You think Russia wants peace? Russia has been invading Ukraine since 2014. They launched a war against their neighbour so they could grab its land and subjugate its people. It's imperialism, and who knows when Russia will decide to stop.
Actually yes there are some people in Russia who want peace, and who protested against Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Such protests in Russia get you arrested though.
There's even madmen in charge and arms dealers in Russia, don't you know? Sure that you know there's been conflict in the Crimea for centuries and there are some quite complex reasons why. I'm_ sorry that you feel that foreigners are out to get you and you need the ability to murderously exterminate them with nukes to feel safe - but each to their own.
But, when Vlad Putin is driving round my estate in a bright red sports car, the local Coop's a Magnit superstore and Mr and Mr Boloksoff have camped in my back garden and are eyeing up the sofa in my front room I'll apologise and say "Blimey, we really shoud have turned Eastern Europe to ashes in a huge cloud of atomic radiation when had the chance! Bastards!"
If you want all countries to give up their nukes then I would agree with that. Perhaps the US could theoretically achieve a world without nukes if they threatened sanctions against countries who keep nukes.
But in reality, if the UK gives up its nukes, no other country will do so. I think Europe should possess nukes for the foreseeable future. Like I said before, if Europe dismantles its nukes, all it would mean is that the US, China, and Russia would suddenly have a lot of leverage over Europe.
If Russia and China gave up nukes, would that mean we have leverage and would immediately invade? Silly me, all British people want nothing more than to attack our "enemies" and restore the Empire!
(I'm still scratching my head about all those countries that don't have nukes. Hmmm... maybe Iran SHOULD be seeking to arm themselves with nukes if they want better "leverage".
Russia and China are not going to give up nukes any time soon. If the US under a future president decided to try and negotiate disarmament to eliminate all nukes then that might work. I think that's the only way Russia or China would give up nukes. Until then I think Europe should keep nukes as a deterrent.
So yes, multilateral disarmament could work, and could prevent lots more countries from building nukes. I don't think unilateral disarmament is a good idea though.
China has been involved in several wars. It has been fighting in Mali since 2012, and has had several skirmishes against India in the past decade. Before that, it was at war with Vietnam in 1979 with tens of thousands killed.
(I'm no fan of the CCCP but) Are you talking about China's use of troops in Mali under the banner of the United Nations? Aren't the other conflicts to do with border clashes between places like Cambodia and Thailand? If that's the definition of "war" then the UK's been waging "wars" almost non-stop since 1945.
You mean the nukes that we aren't allowed to fire without US approval? That we have to send something like a billion per year to the US to get serviced and as a result aren't even available to fire sometimes? Sorry but it seems very unlikely that trident is offering any kind of protection for us.
Each missile costs up to £5 million to maintain per year. Think of all those arm manufacturers bonuses at risk if everyone had your attitude.
None of that is accurate. Britain retains unilateral ability to launch. The only items sent to the US are the unarmed missiles.
I think we can fire them without US approval. Sure it's a problem that the UK is reliant on US missiles to deliver British nukes. France is in a better situation because they have French missiles for their nukes - they're not dependent on foreign missiles.
Maybe the solution then is to develop British or European missiles and bombs for British nukes, rather than scrap Britain's nukes altogether.