It’s safe to say that in light of the current Ukraine conflict, no nation is going to be willingly giving up it’s nukes any time soon, and nor should they.
If anyone wants an example of a nuclear deterrent working, you only need to look at the reluctance to militarily engage Russia directly.
How can anyone guarantee that rogue countries such as Russia / NK etc will not simply create new nuclear weapons.
Yes it would be wonderful if they hadn’t ever been created, but they do exist and you cannot simply wish them all out of existence and have any means of guaranteeing that no country will not make new ones.
All this will do is leave countries that did do this exposed for being invaded / nuked.
Look at Ukraine, they gave up their nukes and Russia (as well as Britain and the USA) were supposed to defend them in the event of any attack… so Russia simply walks in and invades knowing they are safe from any risk of being nuked by Ukraine, while the USA and Britain are stuck unable to do much due to Russia’s threat of using its nukes.
> In 1993, International relations theorist and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer published an article including his prediction that a Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia, but this was very much a minority view at the time
Maybe more people should have fucking listened to him and not believed Russia wouldn’t do as they have done.
Edit… here’s what Russia promised and has completely gone back on the first 3 points already so far and is threatening the use of nukes, so also gone back on its agreement with the rest
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
Every country should have them. World peace, then, right?
There was an organization called Excomm set up under J.F.K. around the time of Cuban missile crisis and by their estimations around 56 million people would die in the first 24 hours of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
This was in the 60’s when nuclear bombs were less powerful than what we have now and far fewer in number. 56 million dead in the first day is now considered small. Having weapons that would wipe out entire continents worth or people, animals and ecosystems in less than a week is horrifying.
Even if Russia, or anyone else, fired their nukes at an enemy without anyone firing nukes back at them they would still be total fucked. With zero retaliation lunching a nuke would still create massive issues for who ever fired it. If Russia decided to nuke Europe, or we decided to nuke Russia, the survivor would then have to deal with nuclear fallout, a permanently damaged eco system, total annihilation of food supplies, poisoned water supplies, a massive humanitarian crises and a total meltdown of the economy. Who ever uses them isn’t just killing an enemy, they are hitting self destruct. There’s no point having nukes unless we’re planning to commit suicide.
There is no debate to be had about Nuclear Weapons Andy. Putin put the final nail in the CND coffin.
Stick to what you’re good at like winning the court court case today and finally being able to bring buses in Manchester back under public ownership.After the absolute shambles they became under private companies.
More like this please.
Less of the Corbyn type bollocks.
Nuclear disarmament. Really? *Now????*
If anything now is the perfect example of exactly *why* we need them. Everyone gets rid if them then great, but you’d have to be unbelievably naive to think that’s ever going to happen.
Every government worldwide would have to agree to nuclear disarmament, and agree that it’s a good idea until the end of time. Otherwise it’s a version of the prisoner’s dilemma, if only one country kept it’s nukes they’d be in a strong position over the others for decades, if not centuries.
No government wants to be the victim in that scenario, and they’d all like to be the bully. Nuclear disarmament is not going to happen.
We’re more in need of a national debate about nuclear power.
Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons in the 1990s conditional on the promise of not being invaded by Russia has really worked out well for them, hasn’t it?
Isn’t there a debate already going on, all the time ?
It’s precisely because Ukraine got rid of their nukes that Russia was able to invade. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?
If you are against nuclear weapons, now is the worst possible time for a debate.
And I thought he’d make a good Labour Leader. What idiot would give up their Nukes knowing Russia won’t?
Putin seems like a reasonable bloke.
If the west made the first move and got rid of all our nukes, I am sure Putin would do the same. It is just basic politeness really.
Nuclear disarmament is the most stupid idea of all time in regards to international relations
Yeah great time to get rid of Trident . We’ve kept it this long and now that Russia actually looks like a threat, let’s debate getting rid of it.
There go another few thousand votes for the left. And thus from one of Labour’s most respected figures.
‘This man is threatening me with a sword! Let me put down my shield!’
Yeah, no.
After this, if we survive and russia is a failed state, it will be a condition for them to give up it’s nukes.
There is no debate you stupid child.
Putin has just threatened to fucking bomb us.
If we get rid of the nukes we dead.
Well at least someone Putin actually respects is getting involved.
As bad as Nukes are, we are now stuck with them, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. All it takes is one fucking prick to hide one away when everyone else disarms and you’ve got a disaster to deal with.
Without NATO being nuclear armed, Russia would be rolling into the Baltic states, Poland etc with impunity and there would be absolutely nothing anyone could do about it.
The facts that Russia attacked a non-NATO country instead, and that NATO is desperate not to directly engage Russia militarily shows that the nuclear deterrent still works.
Unilateral disarmament in the face if an aggressive enemy is quite probably the stupidest possible conclusion anyone could draw from current events.
Is Putin crazy enough to launch nuclear weapons in Ukraine? Are the generals subservient to allow it?
Putin is backed to a corner. He is alive and free when he’s in power. That makes desperation.
lol fuck off this dude wants to become labour leader but its not happening
Pretty sure that debate will be a waste of time lol
In the case of a full fledged nuclear war it doesn’t matter who has nukes, all or most humans are fucked, it won’t matter who responds UK, France or the US.
If you’d asked me a couple of years ago I would have fully backed nuclear disarmament. But this whole debacle has shown me that mutually assured destruction is the one thing keeping the peace ironically and if one side disarmed themselves they’d be a target straight away.
If you definitely don’t want rid of our nuclear weapons then now is the time to have a national debate about it.
Before we get rid of ours you have definitely got rid of yours havnt you?
Yep
Totally disagree with this, mutually assured destruction if the ultimate peace keeper. We need more nukes and more nuclear power stations too, aim for energy independence, like we should have 30 years ago.
Burnham in one moment making himself ineligible for any leadership role.
Muppet.
As a Manc who previously voted for this idiot I can tell you he’s no longer my mayor
Russia will never _ever_ give up their nuclear weapons.
There is no logical situation where unilateral disarmament is a good idea for us.
Part of what makes conflict so devastating is that the elites rarely bare any of the costs. Thats what makes nuclear weapons effective deterrents. No one will be spared.
Such a moron. Labour is just horrible and illogical, doesn’t care about the citizens and always willing to bend over
National debate? Fucking rookies.
Let’s have a referendum on it!
Ukraine gave up the nukes they possessed, I’d say it’s worked out pretty poorly for them, but maybe mr galaxy brain has a full proof method of stopping Russian nukes with Twitter hashtags.
No thanks. I used to be a HEAVY advocate of nuclear disarmament. But now after any country in the world can make and threaten people with them. Its never going to happen. Imagine if the whole world was disarmed and Russia said “oops we hid a few dozen in the basement for putin 2”
No disarmament can happen until every nation is on board and that could take 100 years yet to achieve.
Humankind needs to meet some threshold of economic parity across all the continents. Moving away from fossil fuels is simply key to reducing conflicts that make superpowers engage in realpolitik, and therefore build nuclear arsenals to defend their interests.
Or, expand it. Every democratic country gets one and the means to drop it anywhere on the planet. Monitored by some global department to make sure its being maintained.
Then at least when the inevitable alien invasion happens (in the crazy timeline we’re in, possible) we’re all tooled up.
So, he’s not smart either.
WHILE we disarm, Russia nor China will never disarm we only make ourselves weak… there, I just gave him the answer and saved a lot of time, money and carbon emissions on a fucking flight to some meeting.
With a simple threat of nuclear winter, NATO and other allies are too scared to help too much, without M.A.D, The likes of Putin or Xi… would walk all other countries,
Ukraine doesn’t have nukes, nor an EU nation with members with nukes, nor are they are member of NATO Russian forces just walked in.
Vladimir Putin would like everyone to disarm so it will be easier for Russia to conquer you in future. And his useful idiots are playing along.
Is there an option to replace them with something more dangerous and intimidating? That would work.
I used to be all for disarmament, now I’m all for rearmament.
No. You will need nukes for space invaders or asteroids.
And how in the sweet fuck does he propose to do that. This guy just pipes up every now and again with the most bizarre stuff like
The more Burnham tries to position himself as a leftie the more I think he seems a bit snakey for being an absolute arch Blairite in the noughties.
I am surprised and very dubious about the number of people suddenly and vociferously suggesting we should scrap our nuclear arsenal to avoid nuclear conflict. It’s a very fucking stupid idea, unless we can guarantee that every country scraps all their nukes and can never create more, which is very clearly impossible.
Why these people are coming out now and saying this is even more baffling. The carnage we are seeing in Ukraine shows that countries and cunts (leaders) like Putin have no qualms in threatening nuclear attacks on countries in order to get their way.
At least with a nuclear attack capability we can hold firm to this weaponry ensuring that a potential aggressor would need to accept their own country and population would be decimated should they carry out their threat and attack us with nuclear weapons.
Whether you believe a country would ever launch nukes or not is irrelevant, you can’t possibly know. But what we do know is that some regimes are entirely comfortable telling the world they don’t have nukes or have no intention of getting nukes, whilst secretly developing and obtaining nukes.
So based on this, the world will find itself continuously faced with dictators such as Putin demanding anything he desires to own whilst threatening to annihilate anyone that refuses him. I honestly feel that the presence of nukes in the hands of various countries has done more to maintain a degree of peace in the las t80
Years than anything else, that and global trade.
I wish, I really wish we could give the damn things up. Whoever invented nuclear weapons, that was the ultimate Pandora’s Box. We can’t put them back in the box anymore. Can you imagine North Korea agreeing to disarm their nukes? I sure can’t.
I wish there was some way to funnel all those resources into anti-nuclear defenses instead. I feel a bit sick at the thought of our country launching a nuke against anybody – it doesn’t matter who/where it’s aimed, someone innocent is going to get caught up in it. Fucking hate that shit.
49 comments
It’s safe to say that in light of the current Ukraine conflict, no nation is going to be willingly giving up it’s nukes any time soon, and nor should they.
If anyone wants an example of a nuclear deterrent working, you only need to look at the reluctance to militarily engage Russia directly.
How can anyone guarantee that rogue countries such as Russia / NK etc will not simply create new nuclear weapons.
Yes it would be wonderful if they hadn’t ever been created, but they do exist and you cannot simply wish them all out of existence and have any means of guaranteeing that no country will not make new ones.
All this will do is leave countries that did do this exposed for being invaded / nuked.
Look at Ukraine, they gave up their nukes and Russia (as well as Britain and the USA) were supposed to defend them in the event of any attack… so Russia simply walks in and invades knowing they are safe from any risk of being nuked by Ukraine, while the USA and Britain are stuck unable to do much due to Russia’s threat of using its nukes.
> In 1993, International relations theorist and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer published an article including his prediction that a Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia, but this was very much a minority view at the time
Maybe more people should have fucking listened to him and not believed Russia wouldn’t do as they have done.
Edit… here’s what Russia promised and has completely gone back on the first 3 points already so far and is threatening the use of nukes, so also gone back on its agreement with the rest
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
Every country should have them. World peace, then, right?
There was an organization called Excomm set up under J.F.K. around the time of Cuban missile crisis and by their estimations around 56 million people would die in the first 24 hours of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
This was in the 60’s when nuclear bombs were less powerful than what we have now and far fewer in number. 56 million dead in the first day is now considered small. Having weapons that would wipe out entire continents worth or people, animals and ecosystems in less than a week is horrifying.
Even if Russia, or anyone else, fired their nukes at an enemy without anyone firing nukes back at them they would still be total fucked. With zero retaliation lunching a nuke would still create massive issues for who ever fired it. If Russia decided to nuke Europe, or we decided to nuke Russia, the survivor would then have to deal with nuclear fallout, a permanently damaged eco system, total annihilation of food supplies, poisoned water supplies, a massive humanitarian crises and a total meltdown of the economy. Who ever uses them isn’t just killing an enemy, they are hitting self destruct. There’s no point having nukes unless we’re planning to commit suicide.
There is no debate to be had about Nuclear Weapons Andy. Putin put the final nail in the CND coffin.
Stick to what you’re good at like winning the court court case today and finally being able to bring buses in Manchester back under public ownership.After the absolute shambles they became under private companies.
More like this please.
Less of the Corbyn type bollocks.
Nuclear disarmament. Really? *Now????*
If anything now is the perfect example of exactly *why* we need them. Everyone gets rid if them then great, but you’d have to be unbelievably naive to think that’s ever going to happen.
Every government worldwide would have to agree to nuclear disarmament, and agree that it’s a good idea until the end of time. Otherwise it’s a version of the prisoner’s dilemma, if only one country kept it’s nukes they’d be in a strong position over the others for decades, if not centuries.
No government wants to be the victim in that scenario, and they’d all like to be the bully. Nuclear disarmament is not going to happen.
We’re more in need of a national debate about nuclear power.
Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons in the 1990s conditional on the promise of not being invaded by Russia has really worked out well for them, hasn’t it?
Isn’t there a debate already going on, all the time ?
It’s precisely because Ukraine got rid of their nukes that Russia was able to invade. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?
If you are against nuclear weapons, now is the worst possible time for a debate.
And I thought he’d make a good Labour Leader. What idiot would give up their Nukes knowing Russia won’t?
Putin seems like a reasonable bloke.
If the west made the first move and got rid of all our nukes, I am sure Putin would do the same. It is just basic politeness really.
Nuclear disarmament is the most stupid idea of all time in regards to international relations
Yeah great time to get rid of Trident . We’ve kept it this long and now that Russia actually looks like a threat, let’s debate getting rid of it.
There go another few thousand votes for the left. And thus from one of Labour’s most respected figures.
‘This man is threatening me with a sword! Let me put down my shield!’
Yeah, no.
After this, if we survive and russia is a failed state, it will be a condition for them to give up it’s nukes.
There is no debate you stupid child.
Putin has just threatened to fucking bomb us.
If we get rid of the nukes we dead.
Well at least someone Putin actually respects is getting involved.
As bad as Nukes are, we are now stuck with them, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. All it takes is one fucking prick to hide one away when everyone else disarms and you’ve got a disaster to deal with.
Without NATO being nuclear armed, Russia would be rolling into the Baltic states, Poland etc with impunity and there would be absolutely nothing anyone could do about it.
The facts that Russia attacked a non-NATO country instead, and that NATO is desperate not to directly engage Russia militarily shows that the nuclear deterrent still works.
Unilateral disarmament in the face if an aggressive enemy is quite probably the stupidest possible conclusion anyone could draw from current events.
Is Putin crazy enough to launch nuclear weapons in Ukraine? Are the generals subservient to allow it?
Putin is backed to a corner. He is alive and free when he’s in power. That makes desperation.
lol fuck off this dude wants to become labour leader but its not happening
Pretty sure that debate will be a waste of time lol
In the case of a full fledged nuclear war it doesn’t matter who has nukes, all or most humans are fucked, it won’t matter who responds UK, France or the US.
If you’d asked me a couple of years ago I would have fully backed nuclear disarmament. But this whole debacle has shown me that mutually assured destruction is the one thing keeping the peace ironically and if one side disarmed themselves they’d be a target straight away.
If you definitely don’t want rid of our nuclear weapons then now is the time to have a national debate about it.
Before we get rid of ours you have definitely got rid of yours havnt you?
Yep
Totally disagree with this, mutually assured destruction if the ultimate peace keeper. We need more nukes and more nuclear power stations too, aim for energy independence, like we should have 30 years ago.
Burnham in one moment making himself ineligible for any leadership role.
Muppet.
As a Manc who previously voted for this idiot I can tell you he’s no longer my mayor
Russia will never _ever_ give up their nuclear weapons.
There is no logical situation where unilateral disarmament is a good idea for us.
Part of what makes conflict so devastating is that the elites rarely bare any of the costs. Thats what makes nuclear weapons effective deterrents. No one will be spared.
Such a moron. Labour is just horrible and illogical, doesn’t care about the citizens and always willing to bend over
National debate? Fucking rookies.
Let’s have a referendum on it!
Ukraine gave up the nukes they possessed, I’d say it’s worked out pretty poorly for them, but maybe mr galaxy brain has a full proof method of stopping Russian nukes with Twitter hashtags.
No thanks. I used to be a HEAVY advocate of nuclear disarmament. But now after any country in the world can make and threaten people with them. Its never going to happen. Imagine if the whole world was disarmed and Russia said “oops we hid a few dozen in the basement for putin 2”
No disarmament can happen until every nation is on board and that could take 100 years yet to achieve.
Humankind needs to meet some threshold of economic parity across all the continents. Moving away from fossil fuels is simply key to reducing conflicts that make superpowers engage in realpolitik, and therefore build nuclear arsenals to defend their interests.
Or, expand it. Every democratic country gets one and the means to drop it anywhere on the planet. Monitored by some global department to make sure its being maintained.
Then at least when the inevitable alien invasion happens (in the crazy timeline we’re in, possible) we’re all tooled up.
So, he’s not smart either.
WHILE we disarm, Russia nor China will never disarm we only make ourselves weak… there, I just gave him the answer and saved a lot of time, money and carbon emissions on a fucking flight to some meeting.
With a simple threat of nuclear winter, NATO and other allies are too scared to help too much, without M.A.D, The likes of Putin or Xi… would walk all other countries,
Ukraine doesn’t have nukes, nor an EU nation with members with nukes, nor are they are member of NATO Russian forces just walked in.
Vladimir Putin would like everyone to disarm so it will be easier for Russia to conquer you in future. And his useful idiots are playing along.
Is there an option to replace them with something more dangerous and intimidating? That would work.
I used to be all for disarmament, now I’m all for rearmament.
No. You will need nukes for space invaders or asteroids.
And how in the sweet fuck does he propose to do that. This guy just pipes up every now and again with the most bizarre stuff like
The more Burnham tries to position himself as a leftie the more I think he seems a bit snakey for being an absolute arch Blairite in the noughties.
I am surprised and very dubious about the number of people suddenly and vociferously suggesting we should scrap our nuclear arsenal to avoid nuclear conflict. It’s a very fucking stupid idea, unless we can guarantee that every country scraps all their nukes and can never create more, which is very clearly impossible.
Why these people are coming out now and saying this is even more baffling. The carnage we are seeing in Ukraine shows that countries and cunts (leaders) like Putin have no qualms in threatening nuclear attacks on countries in order to get their way.
At least with a nuclear attack capability we can hold firm to this weaponry ensuring that a potential aggressor would need to accept their own country and population would be decimated should they carry out their threat and attack us with nuclear weapons.
Whether you believe a country would ever launch nukes or not is irrelevant, you can’t possibly know. But what we do know is that some regimes are entirely comfortable telling the world they don’t have nukes or have no intention of getting nukes, whilst secretly developing and obtaining nukes.
So based on this, the world will find itself continuously faced with dictators such as Putin demanding anything he desires to own whilst threatening to annihilate anyone that refuses him. I honestly feel that the presence of nukes in the hands of various countries has done more to maintain a degree of peace in the las t80
Years than anything else, that and global trade.
I wish, I really wish we could give the damn things up. Whoever invented nuclear weapons, that was the ultimate Pandora’s Box. We can’t put them back in the box anymore. Can you imagine North Korea agreeing to disarm their nukes? I sure can’t.
I wish there was some way to funnel all those resources into anti-nuclear defenses instead. I feel a bit sick at the thought of our country launching a nuke against anybody – it doesn’t matter who/where it’s aimed, someone innocent is going to get caught up in it. Fucking hate that shit.