Thursday 29 April 2010

Three Teeth are a waste of money

To stick to the election then... I mentioned briefly to Patrick my problem with the Trident Nuclear Deterrent. I would like to outline it now:

To start with, the idea that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to others. They don't. they work in so much as another country may not launch warheads for fear of retaliation. But what if they launch them anyway. Surely then, our own use of them would simply be revenge; comfort in the thought that after we have all burnt to a crisp, THEY will be soon. Britain has less nuclear warheads then any country that officially has them. If there is a war, Britain's ability to destroy would be dwarfed by its foes. Also, what nuclear war could we envisage that does not involve America and/or Europe on the side of Britain? both have nuclear weapons, and both would act as a deterrent in themselves to aggressors against the UK. In fact, any war of aggression against Britain would invoke the NATO treaty, and numerous nuclear powers would come to our aid. As for war of aggression. Britain, considering its self perception as a 'moral' power would never consider using nuclear warheads first, or against a nation that does not have them. If we did then we would automatically provoke reaction from the 'moral' peacekeeping powers of the world. In short, there is absolutely no reason to invest a large percentage of this country's ability to pull itself out of recession in a like for like replacement of a pointless, immoral, and expensive set of dentures...

p.s. sorry for the teeth pun

9 comments:

  1. What then do you make of the idea that we are living through an 'era of nuclear peace'?

    The threat of wars between the great powers has clearly abated. Might this having anything to do with the m.a.d - 'mutually assured destruction' - logic of nuclear deterrent?

    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  2. no... the pax americana is sustained by the lack (until recently) of capable opponent the the US. Whilst MAD may have stopped the cold war from getting hot, it is pointless now. I think that pakistan and india have so far declined from using nuclear weapons on each other beacuse they fear the inevitable international retaliation. Although, in pakistan it looks like it wont be long before un desirable and dangerous groups take control of the red button. To suggest their has been peace is rather an odd point i think. yes, peace between the great industrial nations has been rare, but this is surely because of mutual interest in international trade. What has happened instead is great powers making war on smaller nations. i doubt they are grateful, or even aware, of the 'peace' supported by nuclear weapons. All warheads do is support the possibility of avoiding their own use, their raison d'etre is to ensure their own uselessness; a delicate balance that wont hold forever...

    ReplyDelete
  3. pax Americana? How last century! What about the Chinese? Are they part of this(or not)?

    Also, global trade was the cause of world wars in the first decades of the last century! Why should it be the cause of peace and harmony now?


    Seems like we are doing (bad) IR and/or political geography here - but we should be approaching this from a philosophical point of view...


    The precise philosophical question is in fact a counter-factual one:

    'would there have been a war between the great post-WWII powers if nuclear weapons had not been deployed as a threat'?

    Of course like all counter-factual assertions it is difficult to answer the question with any precision, but there is good inductive evidence to suggest that nuclear weapons have had some effect (no war has yet been waged between two nuclear powers)...

    Kant for one believed that ultimately the threat of world annihilation would be the trigger that inaugurates a cosmopolitan era of world peace! I wouldn't quite go that far, but I do think that this issue is much more complicated than you are making it out to be....

    Neil Turnbull

    ReplyDelete
  4. well.. The soviet union and the west almost came to blows directly after wwII. They didn't (before all powers had nuclear aresnals) because, i think, after the exhaustion of all involved in the said conflict. india and pakistan have been to war on numerous occaisons (i think 5 in total) and yet, thus far, nuclear weapons have neither been used in, nor avoided a war. although the wars you mentioned were over trade, very loosely speaking, the post world war economy is drastically different. back then it was about state endorsed company monopoly of the international market through control of natural recsources (observe how britain focussed on the war in north africa, not soely because of it bases there, but to protect the suez canal and thus trade routes to india. the world now is much more complex, organic, and delicate... much more profit is gained (between industrial nations) through peaceful (in a militray sense) trade. war for the purpose of trade is restricted to invading smaller countries to open up new markets. as for china... what would we (the west) have to gain by attacking a source of cheap production? and what would china have to gain by attacking it largest customers. I nay be being simplistic, but perhaps the sitiuation is less complicated than you suggest. as for kant; history has shown that the largets periods of peace are during the supreme dominance of one power (pax romana, pax brittanica etc). when others try to counter balance that power the system of mutual threat collapses into war (alla WW1). Blackadder goes forth offers a humerous example of the futility of mutual threat when he describes the pre-war strategy of britain and germany

    ReplyDelete
  5. also, with most of the world (humour me for a second) now ideologically speaking, pacified through acceptance of american globalisation; any war to come would probably be one emerging from religious extremism, then no deterrent will matter because of peaople's faith in god's will. this is especially pertinent with reagrds to the evagellical christians (who have influence in america) believing that the end of the world is not only coming but needs to be initiated

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fred, I think that you need to make your mind up whether you are a 'historian' or a 'philosopher'...


    I am not a historian, but I can spot a bogus historian a mile off. So to help you out of your historical confusion and into the bright uplands of philosophical clarity, here are some points...


    1. 'Wars end because of exhaustion' is an interesting but highly speculative thesis. And probably wrong given that WWII only lasted 6 years!


    2. I don't think that there has been a 'war' between India and Pakistan since both have achieved 'nuclear status' (although admittedly I may be wrong about this, and it all depends on what you mean by 'war').

    3. Your idea that the economy of today is very different - true in a sense, but it is still an economy where nation states are in competition with each other for scarce resources. Wars still break out because of this, but not between the great powers for some reason. Moreover, although it is still a capitialist economy, it is one horrors of war have forced some powers to cooperate rather than fight (the Franco-German alliance is the obvious example here; in fact examine the reasons behind the development of the EU)...

    4. As for fundamentalist Christians dropping nuclear bombs to bring about the apocalypse...
    Well, evangelical Christianity is a key part of American ideology; so by your own argument it should really be bringing about 'global pacification'...

    And in many ways this is exactly what it is trying to do. Evangelical Christianity is about money first and foremost....

    Neil Turnbull

    ReplyDelete
  7. i was talking about a particular group, the end timers, who wish to bring about the apocalypse as described in revelations. regarding exhaustion, i meant economic exhaustion.
    but i concede, although i think my history is not 'bogus' this is a philosophy blog and im not being very philosophical. its just that these issues are pertinent at the moment...

    ReplyDelete
  8. no offence meant Fred, I was only teasing!

    I was just trying to point out that it easy for a philosopher to drift into history/social sciences and get bogged down in the historical facts. Best to stick to the rough ground of philosophy, it's a lot more interesting...

    Cheers!

    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  9. agreed, perhaps i will consider the philosophical questions involved and repost when ive got time... perhaps an interesting question would be 'in what situation, if any, would a state be justified in using nuclear weapons?' but thats all for now...

    ReplyDelete