Tories Support Pre-Emptive Nuclear War 328

On Radio 4 this morning Defence Secretary Michael Fallon argued not just for Trident missiles, but for first use of nuclear weapons and “pre-emptive nuclear war”. There was no misunderstanding or circumstance – he was queried very specifically on the exact point. Not only do the Tories support having weapons of mass destruction, they support using them when none have been used against us.

The whole discussion is of course a fantasy as there is no danger whatsoever of a major attack on the UK by any foreign power. Russia has no plans to attack the UK, has never had any plans to attack the UK, and anyway has an economy the size of the Spanish economy. Mind you, the Tories have also been fantasising about war with Spain recently…

There is no sensible justification for Trident. What North Korea shows is that nuclear weapons are no deterrent against other countries developing them. Only a lunatic would actually use them – Kim Jong Un, Michael Fallon, Theresa May – and you can’t deter a lunatic. And Michael Fallon’s suggestion this morning that nuclear weapons in some way deter terrorists is risible.

But just as the media are very wrong to spend the last 24 hours telling us that Jeremy Corbyn is mad because he won’t commit to destroying mankind, it would be equally wrong of me to argue that every single person who supports Trident is a blazing fascist. There are decent people who support Trident. But they would not support the Fallon/May doctrine of “pre-emptive nuclear war” and first use of nuclear weapons.

I would like to believe that the Fallon/May enthusiasm for first use and pushing that red button, along with hard Brexit and anti-immigration rhetoric, would convince some moderate Tories and ex-Labour voters that they are being hustled very quickly down a path it is wrong to go down. But I fear the media water chute has caught them up and realisation may not set in on time.

During the referendum campaign there was a suggestion from the SNP that after Independence we might give WENI (Wales England Northern Ireland) seven years grace to prepare before removing its missiles from the Clyde. I am totally opposed to this. I rather support the Ukrainian solution, whereby an international team is brought in immediately to verify the decommissioning of any nuclear weapons on Scottish territory or in Scottish waters.

If you cut the missiles in two along the middle, they might make good children’s slides.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

328 thoughts on “Tories Support Pre-Emptive Nuclear War

1 2 3
  • John Goss

    Fallon is the knob-end of the political spectrum. Of course it is bluster, talk of ‘first-strike’, because if it is not the planet is doomed. I despair that these idiots are the mouthpiece of public opinion.

    Vote Corbyn. Convince others to do the same. We have a prime minister who is afraid to appear in open debate who wants to debate the terms of Brexit. And now a Minister of Defence trying to get us all blown to kingdom come. Vote Corbyn.

    • reel guid

      Don’t vote Corbyn in Scotland if you want to make Scotland free of nuclear weapons.

      • John Goss

        I live in England reel guid. As a member of the Labour Party who rejoined to help secure Jeremy Corbyn’s position and hopefully return the Labour Party to its former status, I cannot really advise Scottish voters, not living there. Scotland already has some of the virtues I would like returned to my beloved country, like free prescriptions and a free higher-education system. Scottish voters must decide for themselves what they think is best for them.

  • reel guid

    A century ago John Maclean brought Red Clydeside. Society benefited.

    A century later Michael Fallon wants to bring Dead Clydeside. No one benefits.

  • fred

    “What North Korea shows is that nuclear weapons are no deterrent against other countries developing them.”

    I don’t think I ever heard anyone claiming having nuclear weapons would deter other countries from developing them. Just that it would deter them from using them. It would deter other countries from starting a conventional war they knew they could never win as well.

    The first half of the 20th century was marred by total warfare in Europe, WWI saw the horrors of industrial scale killing with machine gun and gas and WWII saw the carpet bombing of residential areas, Coventry and Dresden flattened with explosives and set on fire with incendiaries that fell like rain from the skies. Who knows what the second half might have been like if the great powers had dared to go to war with each other.

  • Dave

    Trident renewal is an economic vested interest and if it is to be decommissioned its politically expedient to offer compensation, a transition period and alternatives to those employed in the nuclear industry.

    But the Trident submarines (bombs separately supplied by US) are obsolete, like the musket, and of no military benefit. I doubt they can hide from modern satellites and they undermine our defences by diverting resources away from manpower and conventional alternatives. Its conventional forces that allow you to give a measured and proportionate response to any threats and nuclear weapons are an all or nothing doomsday weapon.

    So Corbyn needs to be explicit and say the independent nuclear deterrent is obsolete, not independent, costs too much and undermines our defences by undermining our conventional forces and ironically as the conservatives are focusing their fire on him, he has an ideal opportunity to say it.

    • craig Post author

      I do not accept the argument about the people employed by nuclear weapons. It is like saying the Spanish Inquisition should not have been stopped because of the jobs of the people who built the bonfires. Why is it millions of others are redundant and these mass killing jobs are sacrosanct?

      • Jiusito

        That’s a fair point, Craig – and yet there is, surely, vital work that the highly skilled engineers involved in designing and building the Vanguard replacements could be reallocated to. Scotland and Northern Ireland have some of the best resources for inexhaustible tidal and wave power in the world but cracking the problem of generating electricity in such unforgiving marine environments is very hard. But what a worthwhile use of those engineers it would be – and if they succeeded, what a huge source of income the technology they developed would prove!

        • Bhante

          “politically expedient to offer compensation, a transition period and alternatives to those employed in the nuclear industry.”

          – such as state-sponsored re-training in renewable energy generation (or a free bicycle if they decline it), even if there are only 520 of them.

          I strongly agree with Craig that nuclear jobs should not be sacrosanct – any moral requirement for compensation is null and void by virtue of their own free choice to work in such an immoral industry in the first place; nevertheless the extreme power of the MIC and the elite suggests a due consideration of realpolitik is necessary – it is better that Trident and the nuclear submarines can be successfully removed, at the cost of some compensation, than that the policy of removing them be circumvented entirely by those with vested interests.

          If Scotland unilaterally (at some stage, and on whatever basis, such as some of those suggested by Craig) declares independence, it would be well within the realms of possibility that the rump-UK would militarily invade Scotland and declare a new border between England and Scotland considerablöy north of the Clyde. Boris Johnson and many others would I am sure enthusiastically support such an option.

      • Tony Little

        Craig, it is my understanding that the MoD state that only 520 people are directly employed on Trident related work. the other military and civil employees are needed for the other military jobs at Faslane.

      • Dave

        As someone suggested you could build the submarines (Trident) without the bombs as a public works scheme. Seems a waste but, surely preferable to them carrying the bombs that can destroy the world. If protecting jobs secures the compromise needed to save the world it becomes another form of MAD not to do it. Although giving workers generous redundancy and funding alternative employment seems a more value for money way to scrap Trident. And this should be the standard practice across the economy.

  • reel guid

    How long do moderate conservatives in Scotland want to go on voting for and being associated with this modern nasty and irresponsible version of Toryism?

    Talking of nuclear first strikes. Taking us out the single market. Subjecting women who’ve been raped to beaurocratic ordeals just to get a wee bit of money for their kids. Saying the majority of our democratically elected parliament can be ignored and we’re leaving the single market even though we voted by a margin of 24% to stay in the EU.

    Is this Scottish? Don’t let this new culture of vicious Toryism define 21st century Scotland.

    Bring on independence.

    • fred

      Do you actually understand what the Rape Clause is? To the SNP it is just a war to say “rape” and “Ruth Davidson” together, it’s just Nationalist propaganda nothing more.

      Here it is explained.

      Now instead of chanting “Ruth Rape Clause Davidson Rape Tories Rape” why don’t you tell us why you oppose the rape clause and why the SNP government don’t use their devolved powers to change it.

      • reel guid

        If Ruth Davidson really thinks the Scottish Government should use their meagre powers to mitigate it why didn’t she get on the phone in the first place to tell May to stop it?

        The rape clause is a vicious clause in the Family Cap legislation which takes child benefit away from larger families. Again the majority of people in Scotland are against the legislation but it’s being imposed anyway. A civilised form of devolution would not seek to relentlessly impose unpopular measures on the devolved nation/region. This modern vicious type of Tory thinks if the power is there use it to the utmost and impose your ideology on others.

        • fred

          The Scottish government have tax raising powers and they have the power to top up benefits if they see fit.

          Why doesn’t the Scottish government just not have the cap in Scotland and raise income tax to pay for it?

          • reel guid

            It’s a piece of Westminster legislation on a reserved matter. Don’t you understand?

          • Republicofscotland

            When the Scottish government has control of ALL its income not just some of it, then I’d imagine that the change would occur.

            Westminster hopes the SNP government negates all the cuts theyve introduced they can’t do it with limited income.

            Westminster has useful idiots like you who bleat on about that very point.

          • fred

            “It’s a piece of Westminster legislation on a reserved matter. Don’t you understand?”

            I understand, you want to keep saying “Ruth Rape Clause Davidson” for the election campaign.

            Are you claiming Scotland does not have the power to raise taxes or that they don’t have the power to top up benefits? I believe they have both can you provide evidence they don’t?

      • Sixer

        The so-called rape clause is bad because:

        * It forces a raped woman to disclose at a time and place not of her choosing. To be able to disclose at a time and place of choice is fundamental to our knowledge of how best to support victims of sexual crime.

        * It creates official records and a paper trail that will follow a child through life and identity them as a product of rape, removing the right of families to disclose or not to disclose to the child as they feel best.

        * It requires support professionals to support an application for Universal Credit/Tax Credits and thereby removes confidentiality from the relationship between support worker and victim of sexual crime – another fundamental plank to our understanding of how to treat victims of sexual crime.

        * Tax Credits are not intended for the benefit of the parents. They are cash transfers ensuring every British child is able to grow up in a household with sufficient monies to feed and clothe them. Tax credits benefit children, not their parents.Let’s not pretend we’re not sacrificing the wellbeing of children based on a moral judgement about their parents. This is Dickensian.

          • Juteman

            I haven’t been on here for a while, but I see Freds extreme rightwards trajectory has speeded up.
            Have you joined the EDL in my absence?

          • fred

            Ah the Yestapo has arrived.

            I don’t see anything right wing about opposing the SNP using the plight of poor rape victims for their political propaganda. I’d rather they did something to help them.

          • Node

            I don’t see anything right wing about opposing the SNP using the plight of poor rape victims for their political propaganda.

            … but it’s OK for YOU to use the plight of poor rape victims for YOUR political propaganda?

          • fred

            I don’t use the word “rape” every time I use the name “Nicola Sturgeon”.

            So why does the Yestapo always attack the person not the politics, that’s two in a row. Do you think you can bully and intimidate people into keeping silent?

          • Node

            You didn’t answer my question. Is it OK for YOU to use the plight of poor rape victims for YOUR political propaganda?

  • Mickc

    There are undoubtedly decent people who support Trident…..but probably because they believe it is under UK control, which it isn’t.

    As I understand the position, it cannot be used without US consent, which would only be given if there was a general nuclear war…in which case it would be irrelevant anyway. Even if the UK were in control of it, the circumstances where it could be used are difficult to imagine.

    The thing is an epic waste of money and militarily useless.

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        I strongly suspect that you do not know that.
        The problem is that the US interests will certainly have strategic precedence, and the command structure will have a dominating US presence. The capacity to act independently may be an entirely hypothetical one.

        • fred

          The myth I keep seeing repeated is that America has operational control of the missiles, that they can physically prevent them being fired, that is not the case.

          • mickc

            With respect, I only mentioned control, not operational control. I have no doubt at all that the UK can actually fire them….but it would never receive US consent to do so “independently”.
            If consent is required, the UK does not have control.

          • fred

            We are members of NATO, a mutual defence agreement, I wouldn’t expect Britain to partake in any military actions without consulting our partners.

          • Bhante

            As far as I have read, the UK can fire or not fire the missiles from the sub as they choose, but once the missile is fired it has to be guided to its pre-programmed target. The UK can presumably type in whatever target they choose, but the guidance system itself at a technical (as opposed to political) level – as far as I read – is totally under the control of the computer system of the commercial company that manufactures Trident. The UK may well have been given assurances that the control of the missile once it is launched cannot be interfered with manually by the management or technical staff of the company and that strict controls are in place to prevent that; nevertheless, the US being what it is, that is most unlikely to be true and the converse (i.e. a specific approval catch, top secret of course) is far more likely.

          • fred

            The missiles use a combination of inertia and stellar guidance, there is no external control, they don’t use GPS. You type in the coordinates and the missile finds the target, once launched nobody has any control over where they come down.

  • Republicofscotland

    The “bigging up” of nuclear weapons by the Tories is in my opinion, to keep the conveyor belt of public cash coming into the coffers of private companies who produce the components for them. No one in their right mind would push the button, but the rhetoric has to be one of, we’ll launch if need be.

    As for Trident in Scotland, yes I want shot of them, but lets not be too hasty, they could be seen as vital bargaining chip by the Scottish government after independence is acheived, though I wouldn’t want to keep hosting them for a long period, (beyond seven years) as we could go back to becoming accustomed (grudgingly) to their presence.

    I suppose the missiles could be used (when gutted) as silo’s for grain or water in the Third World, putting them to good use.

  • Deepgreenpuddock

    Does anyone think that the plan was not always a pre-emptive strike? What is different and interesting is that Fallon is stating it clearly and openly. That is related to their sense that they are about to ascend to an unassailable position of power, where no opposition will be tolerated, and dissidence or alternative views will be interpreted as disobedience.
    Only a pre-emptive strike that neutralises the opposition makes (any) sense. The very slight possibility that a pre-emptivestrike could be overwhelmingly ‘successful’ is the only tiny shred of credibility in this situation.
    it is about hubris, not reasoning.

    • michael norton

      Arms giant BAE seals deal for £1.4bn nuclear attack submarine
      Global arms firm BAE Systems has secured a £1.4 billion ($1.8bn) deal to build the latest Astute class nuclear-powered attack submarine, which will be the sixth and most advanced warship in its class yet built.

      The latest boat, the HMS Agamemnon, will be fitted with the new Common Combat System – in effect an advanced ‘brain’ that controls how the submarine’s nervous system works in combat.She will be built in Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, BAE’s maritime warfare hub.


      Yes, the U.K. seems to be getting more and more gung-ho

      New Trident, new Nuclear Power Stations, New Astute class nuclear-powered attack submarine, new full sized Aircraft Carriers, New Type 26 and New Type 31 Frigates, blimey, we will soon be returning the Rule The Waves.

  • Habbabkuk

    I also heard – by chance – Nick Robinson interviewing the Defence Secretary this morning (the Today programme just before 08h00 British time, I believe.

    Two comments at this stage:

    1/. It is a wild exaggeration to claim that the interview demonstated Mrs May’s and Mr Fallon’s “enthusiasm” for first use. Nor did I hear the Defence Secretary claiming that the UK nuclear capability would deter terrorism. What I did hear was the Defence Secretary saying (perhaps I paraphrase slightly) was that a nuclear capability was only a deterrent against Britain’s enemies if its use (including first strike) remained an option at all times.

    2/. To my mind, Mr Robinson gave the Defence Secretary a hard time, thereby giving the lie to those who have had fun over the last few days claiming that he and the BBC are nothing more than a stooge of and mouthpiece for the Conservative government. Those claims probably owe everything to the extremist political prejudices of those making them and very little to the actual facts.

    • D_Majestic

      Watch the programmes, BBC News, and Newsnight. Look at the BBC News website. And then tell us that the BBC is not acting well outside its established remit. Remember-Google is your friend, La Ryvita e bella. Rofl.

  • Anon1

    He said the Prime Minister would not rule out a first strike and that one would be considered only in the most extreme circumstances.

    I can’t see what the fuss is about. You never publicly rule out a first strike. The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to maintain a deterrent and you do that by making it absolutely clear you will use them. In reality it would be extremely unlikely that Britain would carry out a first strike.

    • michael norton

      The Tident programme necessitates a British Nuclear power station programme.

      Nuclear produced electricity is almost certainly a madness of unlimited extent.

      Nobody on the planet has yet worked out what to do with the nuclear waste.

      Another point is the Uranium is in limited supply.

      Ask the French tearing up The Sahel, looking for the poison, drone centres death – destruction and dominance.

    • nevermind

      Why should one consider a first strike when it drives a train through the NPT

      ‘the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.’

      The Tories are undermining UK security and its economic interest as they are waving flags into another election.
      They should be sitting across the table and get ‘the best possible deal’ for Brexit as they promised the public after the referendum, not fawning around Wales and getting inspirations from four legged sheep.

      Why is Mrs. May not banning those 30 possibly criminally fraudulent Tories who are in the CPS sight? Is that her personal sort of disrespect to what’s left of a shabby democracy?

      Her sole reasoning to call this 300 million taxpayers expense has been dismissed by EU bureaucrats, so this is nothing but a party damage limitations exercise, another diversion from taking back power.

      Increasing the amount of warheads we have, as we are, despite having signed the NPT, means that we are in breach of its aims, we also have made no move to de- denuclearise defence.
      Fallon’s hard talking is his election orgasm, that he is flouting a system that is pathetically in effective and very likely faulty, is like waving a shoe at Russia and his insistence to even contemplate first use might result in big embarrassment.

      ‘The prime minister would not rule out first strike’. Would she Fred Fallon? Just over the head of other NATO countries? and then hope that she’ll get support for it? utter poppycock, the two are trying to win an election by scaring people, remember, the same tactics as were used in the referendum and there will be more to come in the next weeks.

    • Habbabkuk


      “The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to maintain a deterrent and you do that by making it absolutely clear you will use them”

      I would wish to refine that slightly: you do that by not specifying in which circumstances you would use your nuclear weapons (aka making it clear that you do not exclude any option).


      The thought occurs that it is (mutatis mutandis) a little like the State of Israel not confirming or denying officially that it has a nuclear capability.

    • D_Majestic

      Two at once, bearing the same message. Neat conspiration. And totally unexpected.

  • Loony

    Observations regarding nuclear weapons are just another manifestation of the overarching insanity that masquerades as policy.

    The only countries with nuclear weapons to categorically rule out a first strike are China and India. The reasons for this are connected to the protection afforded them by their vast populations and have nothing to do with any “morality.”

    Therefore if all other nuclear states are willing to consider a first strike then you must also be willing to contemplate a first strike. Having an expressed willingness to engage in a first strike is especially useful for a country whose population refuses to do any work and also refuses to desist from engaging in an accelerating orgy of consumption.

    • nevermind

      Did you realise yet that UK shoppers have stopped consuming, they call it a remarkable drop, try and get out of your bin, loony.

      • Habbabkuk

        I believe that statement is contradicted by the facts. Domestic consumption, far from having stopped, is increasing.

  • Loony

    D’yall know that the US now believes it possible that they could “win” a nuclear war. Therefore they may launch such a war because they believe that they could emerge as victors.

    How they come to believe this I know not – but their thinking is probably helped along the way by people that believe Russia to be analogous to Spain. It is truly terrifying that someone who has operated at Ambassador level for the UK government could possibly believe that there is any meaningful comparison between the 2 states. If this is what a “dissident” believes then I dread to think what the people with their hands on the levers of power might think.

    • Habbabkuk

      One should never forget that the relevant economic data for the Soviet Union gave a totally misleading picture of the size and strength of the Soviet economy because it was expressed, by the Soviets, in accordance with a ruble / US dollar exchange rate ( virtual parity ) that bore no relation to reality.

      Idem the data for the other countries of the Soviet Empire.

      • Loony

        Indeed, and what can learned from the USSR?

        One way of looking at things is that the USSR came into being by way of violent revolution and throughout its existence was corrupt, inefficient and wasteful on a gigantic scale. Much of its best human talent was wasted or eliminated via purges. It was subjected to outside attack which laid waste to most of European Russia and the population was further depleted on a massive scale. The scale of the suffering and destruction remains scarcely comprehensible.

        Yet the USSR persisted for almost 70 years, and for much of that time held considerable international influence. What allowed such a destructive system to persist for so long? The answer almost certainly lies in the vast natural wealth of Russia, Wealth that remains to this day. If it was capable of being leveraged to maintain the USSR then it is surely capable of being leveraged to protect Russia today. Vladimir Putin may be many things – but I have yet to hear the fake news alleging that his Russia is more inefficient and more corrupt than the USSR.

        • James Dickenson

          “Yet the USSR persisted for almost 70 years, and for much of that time held considerable international influence. What allowed such a destructive system to persist for so long? The answer almost certainly lies in the vast natural wealth of Russia, Wealth that remains to this day.”

          And this?
          “Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system.
          The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs.
          An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens.”

        • Habbabkuk

          The USSR – or more precisely, the CPSU – was from its very beginning a criminal organisation, the persistence of which had nothing to do with the natural wealth of Russia and everything to do with the crimes against humanity and war crimes it committed against its own peoples and many other peoples.

          It is almost beyond belief that this simple truth is still denied vociferously by some people,

          • James Dickenson

            This is a ‘simple truth’?

            “An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens.”

          • Loony

            Yeah right – the only weapons the soviets had to resist the Nazi’s were ALL supplied by the British. It was the British that designed and manufactured the T-34 tank and gave them all to Russia. It was soldiers from Kansas and Cornwall that were kidnapped by the soviets to defend Stalingrad.

            Hitler was insane and attacked the Caucuses as an act of insanity – and he had no idea that there would be any oil there and had no idea that the German army required any oil to make its tanks go.

            The Soviet Union never exported any oil in order to obtain hard currency – and if it did then it would simply have burnt the currency in order to demonstrate its own criminality.

    • Hmmm

      Loony, did you say that English is not your native tongue?
      The comparison to Spain was to lever in a joke about going to war with them. A method most comedians would happily employ.
      Hope that helps.

  • Bhante

    “The whole discussion is of course a fantasy as there is no danger whatsoever of a major attack on the UK by any foreign power. Russia has no plans to attack the UK, has never had any plans to attack the UK, and anyway has an economy the size of the Spanish economy.”

    Craig, there is nothing fantasy about it at all! We are FAR closer to the chances of a nuclear first strike today than at any time during the Cold War. Not because Russia wants to threaten NATO, but because NATO IS threatening and WANTS to threaten Russia, and because NATO has a deeply established policy of militarily encircling Russia and seriously undermining its legitimate strategic defensive interests. It is doing its best to tighten the noose day by day. Furthermore, the neocon elite who DO control global power are desperate to find an excuse to trigger WWIII, in an attempt to salvage their politically, economically and morally bankrupt system before the petrodollar gets ditched by the Chinese. The neocons don’t see any other way to hold on to their power.

    See an excellent article here suggesting three different scenarios – all very plausible and all very closely related to current US neocon ambitions – that could lead to a major (potentially nuclear) war between the US and China that both sides want to avoid:

    The dangers of an unplanned slide into nuclear war with Russia are arguably massively greater than with China, and there are a much larger number of potential triggers that could lead to an escalation in an analogous way to that with China. There is an over-abundance of provocations from NATO; just one moderate reaction from Russia could easily lead to an escalation.

    The risks of such escalation are all the greater – by a large margin – when the US Commander in Chief is unpredictable, volatile, manipulated by those around him, not very intelligent, and having scant grasp of the complexities of foreign policies.

    Ever since 1990 the US has been ACTIVELY following a policy of nuclear first strike capability against Russia, and all this time they have been getting – at least in the highly delusional and corrupt vision of the military industrial complex – closer and closer to believing they have that capability, and seem determined to use it as soon as possible. The recent missile strike against Syria (with, we are told, only 23 of 59 missiles reaching their target, and those 23 apparently doing rather little damage for 1.4 million dollars a throw) gives a taster for how the far more effective and far less corrupt Russian military technology is technologically superior. The neocons think they can destroy Russia in a nuclear first strike and escape somewhat unscathed (in elite terms) with only a ‘handful’ of nuclear explosions in the USA. More likely the US and their military bases around the world will receive over a thousand nuclear explosions and Europe will be totally destroyed, causing a global nuclear winter.

    The notion of a nuclear first strike needs to be rejected with much more enthusiasm, Craig.

    • nevermind

      well said Bhante, proliferation and further development of these systems make it more likely that these inhumane indiscriminate and outlawed weapons will be used.

      For example, Norwich has a pesticide manufacturing process right in the micddle of town and downwind of an estate that was not there when the factory was found. Apart from a few minor incidence not much has happened there thankfully, but the same stoicism exists as nobody wants to move it out of town un til the ever increasing risk of an accident has actually happened.

      The longer this risk exist it will increase and, eventually, unless actions to alleviate it are taken, for example a bit by bit shut down and replacement somewhere else over a ten year period, the chances of a major accident with fatal consequences will increase or happen.

  • Matt

    I’m puzzled as to why the politicians aren’t asked whether this use of weapons of mass destruction would be a war crime. I thought we didn’t like weapons of mass destruction, and that the targeting of civilians was no longer a legal way of waging war, yet mention Trident and you are a loony if you say “no”.

    • Habbabkuk

      Presumably you’re referring to first use. Are you saying that first use of nuclear weapons would/should be a war crime but their second-strike use wouldn’t? Please clarify your thought and redraft if necessary.

      • Hmmm

        Why would you spend even a few seconds asking such an inane question?!
        What difference does it make?
        Who is going to pursue a prosecution?
        I really enjoy wasting my time pointing out how you waste yours.

        • Habbabkuk

          Thank you for your questions but should you not be addressing them to the author of the post to which I was responding (Matt at 12h23)?

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Matthew 12:23….

            And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?


      • nevermind

        Your questioning is, as usual, irrelevant, the use of nuclear weapons has been outlawed already as it is indiscriminate against third countries not at war. Indeed weather patterns will make first use an inevitable war crime as third parties would be inundated with fallout/radiation and widespread death.

        Off course some would argue that it is impossible not to be in a nuclear war, that there would be no third parties that are vulnerable and hence we can ignore it, but spare a minute, some New Zealanders might starkly disagree with such course of action.

        I think Mr. Fallon should lie flat in bed for a while until he has calmed down a bit, because he is already deep into his preparing, his overweight war bees up into the skies are still drowning out the peaceful humming of the neighbours bees, for over a week now, please somebody put him in a white suit, or a dark tank were he has peace for a while.
        maybe Habby wants to join him.

        Have erected a Labour party poster for all commuters to see, as yet no negative comments, some smiles and a couple of thumbs up. In deeply conservative south Norfolk.
        maybe some had enough of being led into uncertainty and/or war, had enough of the cheating Tories, their hatred of the disabled and single mums as well as their austerity privatisation scams.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      The law is rather murky on this. It is, however, clearly against international law to use weapons which are incapable of discriminating between military and civilian targets.

      International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion 1996:

      “It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

      However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

      However, do look at this and consider whether it has been taken seriously by the international community (especially the Western powers, particularly the United States):


      There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”.

      Regarding civilians:

      “After sketching the historical development of the body of rules which originally were called “laws and customs of war” and later came to be termed “international humanitarian law”, the Court observes that the cardinal principles contained in the texts constituting the fabric of humanitarian law are the following. The first is aimed at the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects and establishes the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. According to the second principle, it is prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants: it is accordingly prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their suffering. In application of that second principle, States do not have unlimited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use.”

      That seems to me to dispose of the question of the legality or otherwise of nuclear weapons pretty effectively.

      In my opinion, politicians are so seldom asked about this matter to spare them embarrassment, since the illegality of threatening civilian populations with destruction is so egregious.

      • nevermind

        thanks JSD, you are so much more precise, inundating third parties with nuclear charged fall out is, in my humble view impossible, unless you can stop the weather.

        Your point about suffering combatants is a give, as even the best equipped soldiers would not get away from radiation sickness and subsequent further suffering and ongoing disabilities.

        that the law can not be used retrospectively and try those who committed undue suffering to the Japanese populus, just so there is a model and precedent, is rather unfortunate.

  • glenn_uk

    “There are decent people who support Trident.

    I meet them all the time, neighbours and so-forth. The idea that we need a nuclear defence is deeply ingrained in them. They seriously think that Russia (or someone) would attack us the next day, if we got rid of these weapons. When it’s put to them that the likes of Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. etc. don’t get attacked, yet they lack nuclear weapons, they go blank for a moment.

    Then some self-defence rationalising comes in, and they’ll start insisting, “Ah yes, but that’s only because _we_ have these weapons and they know we’d defend them.” So why aren’t they paying us for this protection service then? Clearly they wouldn’t, because they have no need of it.

    • Habbabkuk

      Belgium, the Netherlands, etc, are members of NATO and therefore under the NATO nuclear shield. Hence that bit of your argument is otiose.

      • glenn_uk

        A well-worn argument. But why does it mean we’re obliged to have nuclear weapons, at quite enormous expense, while they are not?

          • glenn_uk

            I don’t believe they have been! Strange that Habbabkuk hasn’t got back to us on this. Do supposedly fiscally responsible Conservatives like wasting hundreds of billions, or paying for the supposed protection of others who never claim they want it?

          • Habbabkuk


            Perhaps you should make that point to the commenters who seem to approve North Korea’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons capability?


            You might also consider that all of the present-day nuclear powers have been attacked at some point(s) or another during the 20th century.

          • glenn_uk

            NK’s wish to have nuclear weapons is certainly understandable. But perhaps you should take it up with the enthusiasts for that country, rather than asking JSD.

            H: “You might also consider that all of the present-day nuclear powers have been attacked at some point(s) or another during the 20th century.”

            Were they in the slightest danger of being overthrown? If not, kindly explain the relevance of your point. While you’re at it, you might take a stab at mine above – I do think it’s rather central to the question of us spending ourselves into the ground, largely (supposedly) on behalf of other countries (according to you).

          • Habbabkuk


            “Were they in the slightest danger of being overthrown?”


            Well, you have cunningly used hindsight in the form of the word “overthrown” in response to my notion of “attacked” .

            As it happens, though, France was, in 1940. Britain and the USSR had considerable reason to fear that between 1939 and 1941/2 (Britain) and 1941 and 1942/3 (USSR). As for the US, China, India and Pakistan, I imagine that at least the perception might have existed, based on the various states of hostility at that time and subsequently

          • glenn_uk

            Oh come on, Habbubkuk – you were talking about nuclear powers being attacked, but now you’re referring to a time well before ANY country had nuclear weapons!

      • J

        “Perhaps you should make that point to the commenters who seem to approve North Korea’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons capability?”

        Has US foreign policy made it more or less likely that smaller countries (and those like North Korea who have already had a taste of it) will scramble to acquire nuclear weapons?

  • Sharp Ears

    As I said, Fallon is evil personified.

    Jeremy has just started speaking to the Scottish Trades Unions at their conference in Aviemore.

    I think Theresa’s having a duvet day.

    • Sharp Ears

      Jeremy has destroyed the first strike myth/bluff. He is obvious intelligence prevents him believing in mutually assured destruction. That’s why the right wingers/Tories/warmongers/gangsters-in-charge loathe him.

      • Habbabkuk

        I should have thought that if there is one thing which proves intelligence it is the acceptance that if one world power uses its nuclear weapons against another world power it is certain to be destroyed itself (aka mutually assured destruction).

        I am under the impression that by saying Mr Cor-byn does not believe in MAD you do not know what MAD means.

      • Bhante

        During the Cold War both the Americans and the Soviets had the common sense and decency to have serious worries about the use of nuclear weapons. Because the corruption and delusion of the US elite has now reached such gigantic proportions and because the US have allowed the corrupt MIC manufacturers to convince them (or bribe them to believe) that they have first strike capability (meaning the capability to make a first strike so effective that the capability of Russia to retaliate is virtually destroyed), the concept of mutually assured destruction is unfortunately now obsolete – at least in the deluded minds of the politicians who would order such an attack. That is precisely what the Russians are afraid of. That the Russians now have the ability to destroy the majority of the missiles before they reach their targets (as, for example, 36 of the 59 missiles shot at Syria) ensures that they can amply retaliate from a first strike – that does not change the fact that a large part of the world will have been detroyed by the neocon lunatics and a global nuclear winter assured. In that sense “mutually assured destruction” is still assured – but as a deterrent to a deranged US/UK neocon first strike it is no longer valid.

        Look at the unbelievable US posturing to North Korea that could so easily escalate out of control to a nuclear war! (And contrary to the MSM propaganda North Korea has been trying to get a peace agreement for over 60 years, denied only by the USA. The USA has been actively threatening North Korea for just as long – under such conditions it is hard to imagine a peaceful and benevolent regime coming to power in North Korea).

      • Republicofscotland

        Good comment Sharp Ears, Corbyn has been honest enough to admit that MAD, is indeed mad.

        Why should a PM need to say I’ll push the button. The Westminster Gung Ho brigade really only want the nukes to line the pockets of their corporate buddies, keep a standing in the P5, and give a false feeling of imperial power.

        It’s a rather pathetic stance, for a now impotent imperial power sitting at the South end of a tiny island off the West coast of Europe.

        • Habbabkuk

          MAD may not be as mad as you think, Republicofscotland – after all, is it not the case that it was the belief of the nuclear superpowers in MAD that kept the world free from nuclear war?

  • Mark Golding

    We must I believe commit to memory the fact that the undeclared nuclear states, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, possess an arsenal of ‘mini-nukes’ or US B61 tactical nuclear warheads which are deployed under national military command and by reading into the strategic blueprint for HMS Daring will be used to attack Iran late summer or sooner.

    • Mark Golding

      Interestingly the forthcoming SCO summit in June 2017 will most likely witness Iran admitted as a full member of the SCO together with India and Pakistan. US president Trump, the darling of the presstitute Zionist-MSM will no doubt be hustled in the knowledge that the SCO will then account for 43 per cent of the world’s population and 24 per cent of global GDP.

      I ask is that further impetus for a nuclear ‘summer sword’ having witnessed US-led coalition invaded Iraq on fraudulent grounds, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya and In Syria, NATO powers and their regional allies backing jihadist ‘rebels’ to overthrow the Syrian government… Hey – Living the life of an ostrich has become de rigeur perhaps…(except in Yemen) – Putin, Assad, and Kim Jong Un are “Dead Men Walking”??

  • fwl

    The outrageous wording in the UKIP document on face covering is: “The time has come to outlaw them”. That ‘them’ is utterly unacceptable.

  • Loony

    To all bleeding heart liberals and delusional moralists everywhere consider this:

    It is estimated that in the UK there are a total of 83.1 million mobile phones. That works out at about 1.29 phones per head of population.

    Of the 17 rare earth minerals, 16 are found in mobile phones.

    As rare earth minerals are found in very low concentrations mining for these minerals is environmentally destructive – so destructive that they are not mined in most western countries, and certainly not to the scale that would be necessary to meet demand. Most rare earths are mined in China – but in recent years China has clamped down on exports. Rare earth mining is ramping up in Brazil, Malaysia, Russia, Vietnam and Thailand – all places where the miners work almost for nothing.

    There is some suggestion that North Korea may contain a lot of rare earths – and there the people would most likely be even cheaper than in Brazil et al. Obviously no-one cares as to any environmental destruction that occur in North Korea, and so North Korea begins to look like a valuable target. In large part the value of North Korea as a target is because you persist in demanding more than one mobile phone per person.

    Was it not John Lennon that opined “and you think you’re so clever, so classless and free, but you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see”

      • Loony

        And your thesis fails on all observable actions.

        No-one has forced people to acquire 83.1 million mobile phones. If people are so malleable and suggestive that they cannot resist buying more and more garbage whilst simultaneously bemoaning their poverty then there really is no such thing as free will. In which case no-one is responsible for anything. Murdering people is no different from not murdering people. Stealing is no different than not stealing.

        Aint it strange though how despite not being responsible for anything British people today are absolutely responsible for steadfastly refusing to do any of the work that is necessary to manufacture any of the things that they buy free of all personal responsibility.

        You don’t like Lennon, try Orwell “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them”

    • michael norton

      I understand that Afghanistan is potentially very wealthy because of the minerals, mostly, as yet unexploited.

      barite, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, natural gas, petroleum, precious and semi-precious stones, salt, sulfur, talc, zinc among many other minerals. Gemstones include high-quality emerald, lapis lazuli, red garnet and ruby. It is believed that among other things the country holds $3 trillion in untapped mineral deposits.
      In December 2013, President Karzai claimed the mineral deposits are actually worth $30 trillion.

      Has there ever been any wars in Afghanistan?

  • david

    Its probably fair to say that every country that possesses nukes also possesses a first strike scenario in their military planning. The UK “admitting ” that is really not news. Neither is it an indication that they would use them first. Simple scenario : a rogue state ( N Korea currently, but it could be anyone) develops ICBM tech. It has the range to hit London, Manchester, Glasgow, Inverness, where ever. The rogue state says its going to use them. You know where they are because they don’t have sub launch capability. Question : do you wait to take a hit killing possibly millions of citizens in the UK ? or do you hit first killing their ability to launch and probably millions in the rogue state, to prevent millions of dead here ? Its not a great choice, but if you are 100% honest with yourself you know which option you’re going for.

    Can NK issue that threat today ? No of course not, but what about 10 or 15 years from now ? MAD is a pretty good way to stop a nuclear exchange, no one would really be insane enough to believe that hitting a Nuke equipped nation with a nuke wont generate a nuclear response.

    Unfortunately we cant uninvent them.

    As to who has control of UK nuclear arsenal, its the UK. We select targets and we can fire them without anyone’s permission.

    So the Tories do not support a pre-emptive nuclear strike any more than France, Russia or America do. Its anyone guess with Israel !

    What’s happened to your impartial and factual analysis of things Craig ? Its why I used to come here, but your England hating is clouding your judgment.

    • John Thomson

      Trident is obsolete but defence systems against nuclear weapons is not and should be looked into. Get rid of all nukes and simply defend against any and all aggressors.

      • D_Majestic

        And the perceptive will have noticed a few things, John Thompson.Some countries have built underground shelters for members of their population. As opposed to those for the ruling psychos. Some countries have an active and well-funded civil defence provision. Some even have very expensive anti-missile defences. Perhaps one of our usual experts would indicate approximately where these exist in the U.K. Or not, as may be the case.

      • Velofello

        John Thomson; no more of your good sense please. Think of Fred here, and others, what will they talk about if good sense enters the discussions?

        Question to the nuclear deterrent proponents – have you ever stabbed an animal, and then commenced to cut off it’s limbs as it it lies dying? Abhorrent question? Then how on earth can you discuss the horrors of nuclear weapons as an option to strike against all living creatures? Because you will only read about it in the press?

    • Loony

      Ah yes, what is happening to a factual analysis? Here are some facts:

      Both China and India have eschewed a nuclear first strike under all circumstances.Therefore it is not “fair to say that every country that possesses nukes also possesses a first strike scenario”

      If you check out US military doctrine you will find that they have moved on from MAD and now believe it is possible to initiate and win a nuclear war. What do you think the missile shields in Poland and Romania are all about. So clearly the US is insane enough to believe that it can hit a nuclear equipped nation.

      Why is North Korea a “rogue state”? Did you know that North Korea acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan and that prior to A Q Khan spilling the beans he was arrested by the Dutch – one phone call from Washington was it all it took for the Dutch to let him go.

      I would be interested in seeing any definition of a “rogue state” that does not capture the US.

      France, Russia and America all contemplate a preemptive nuclear strike. Only Russia has set out the exact conditions in which it would be the first to use nuclear weapons.

    • J

      Perhaps Craig can intervene to correct me on this but as I understand it, this is a novel diplomatic departure.

    • nevermind

      ‘ MAD is a pretty good way to stop a nuclear exchange, no one would really be insane enough to believe that hitting a Nuke equipped nation with a nuke wont generate a nuclear response. ‘

      Mutual assured destruction was born out of a cold war and should not have any place within cosmic top secret planning in today’s world, non proliferation and the eradication of all kinds of nuclear weapons should be accelerated, time frames chosen, and fines for non compliance discussed.

      And why should Craig go for any of your options, it makes no difference whether you receive of deliver these weapons as you can’t prevent a second strike hitting your country, retaliation is guaranteed and only supersonic missiles are able to intercept, but, only if they are able to intercept before the release of warheads.

      my best wishes to the family and your children, what a prospect they have to look forward to, annihilation ethics in primary school backed up by philosophical lessons on why Beelzebub has been so denigrated in history. Oh yes, marketing and growing future customers for the consumption of genetic foods is already on the curriculum….

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Suppose the rogue state doesn’t bother saying it’s going to use them. But you fear that it will.

      Then what?

      Suppose North Korea, say, fears that the US is a rogue state, and is preparing to use nuclear weapons against it.

      Then what?

  • reel guid

    This pre-emptive strike talk all comes from Theresa May. She was the first politician to say she’d use nuclear weapons when questioned during the Tory leadership campaign. Fallon’s just echoing his boss.

  • Pete

    Craig, you assert that “you can’t deter a lunatic.” But I suspect that as a former psychiatric nurse I’ve know a great many more “lunatics” than you have, including many extremely violent ones, and I can assure you that they can indeed often be deterred. Most people retain some vestigial realism even in the throes of extreme paranoia or thought disorder. In any case, neither Kim Jong On, Trump, May, nor anybody else can launch the nukes single handed. Other people have to be ready to obey their orders. It’s the loyalty, fear, rationality, and survival instincts of those unknown functionaries that’s crucial here, and in the case of North Korea it’s a totally unknown factor.

    Actually NK is a very good argument in favour of retaining nukes- compare the Kim dynasty with Saddam, Ghadafi, etc, Kim has nukes, they didn’t. Only country to have given up nukes is Ukraine- they’re also the only European country to have had parts of their territory forcibly annexed since WW2.

    • Loony

      Are you familiar with the word disingenuous”?

      Ukraine may or may not have had parts of its territory forcibly annexed – it all depends on your perspective.

      Yugoslavia by contrast requires no perspective at all. It was subject to a sustained bombing campaign and parts of its territory was forcibly removed from it.

      Both the Ukraine and the area of land formerly known as Yugoslavia are in Europe.

      • Habbabkuk

        Serbia was dealt with (admittedly belatedly) because we Europeans, after the experiences of 1939-45, no longer wish to see one bunch of Europeans murdering another bunch of Europeans.

        The only pity is that we so not have the reach and capability to stop the same sort of thing going on within countries elsewhere in the planet (Ruanda, Burundi, Congo, Sudan and many others refer…)

      • Habbabkuk


        “Yugoslavia…… and parts of its territory was forcibly removed from it.”

        Removed but not annexed by another state. One part of its territory, which enjoyed considerable autonomy before the Serb fascists started throwing their weight around and which went on to become a new, independent state.

        Should I whisper “Scotland” ? 🙂

    • michael norton

      Belarus, kazakhstan & South Africa have also given up having nuclear weapons / programmes

    • Habbabkuk

      @ Pete

      I believe that South Africa and Kazakhstan also gave up their nuclear weapons (perhaps only the technology in the case of South Africa)? But the point you make in your final para remains a good one.

  • J

    Perversely (if you believe the last century or so of mass media and cultural indoctrination) it is the beacon of liberty herself, the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war (twice) and to have tested them ruthlessly upon captive populations, the United States of America, who is demonstrably the greatest single threat to world peace and security. The up to 20 million plus body count during the last half of the last century should be something of a clue:

    In the last two decades American foreign policy has made it’s intentions crystal clear. The only way of avoiding violent over throw is to accept their Cowboys and Indians market model where you are the ‘Indian,’ or develop the capability of WMD. Any nation not subscribing to America Channel© who then disarms or does not possess WMD is fair game and will be pillaged, destroyed and balkanised. The statistics of the destruction of North Korea are informative. The loss of all memory of them is also a lesson.

    Nuclear weapons may be the apotheosis of their neo-liberal/neo-conservative market fundamentalist model, there will be no competition or there will be death.

      • J

        Most of Europe’s problems today have their origin in US foreign policy, as do most of the problems with Russia, Middle East and China. Discuss.

  • Republicofscotland

    Apologies Craig for going off topic, but I’ve been following this family’s unjust plight for awhile now.

    It’s a travesty what the Home Office has done to them, the family has contributed so much to their community.

    There’s a petition to try and stop the deportation.

    It’s a terrible state of affairs, the new highland clearances are in full swing.

  • reel guid

    The whole point of a deterrent is that the opponent is kept unsure. But to start saying that Trident would definitely would be used creates a mindset and culture among politicians, defence staff and commanders that it is acceptable and can’t be questioned. In all the decades Britain has had a nuclear capability no previous PM or MoD minister, as far as I’m aware, has ever said they would definitely be used given circumstances. May and Fallon have.

    • Habbabkuk

      “…no previous PM or MoD minister, as far as I’m aware, has ever said they would definitely be used given circumstances. May and Fallon have”

      Did Mr Fallon say that this morning? I was under the impression that he refused to rule out their use.

      Can someone provide a link to the transcript or a recording?

      • Habbabkuk

        OK, I see that Sharp Ears has supplied the sentence in question (for which thank you). I see nothing reprehensible about it; it is merely realistic (and sensible, insofar as any possession and use of nuclear weapons can be said to be sensible).

  • Popeye

    Fallon’s position is perfectly logical. Britain is a little piss-ant statelet, a six-nuke laydown of a target. A counterforce attack would take a negligible fraction of the SCO’s armament. The only possible use of Britain’s little clutch of nukes is to strike first. Britain’s nukes function as North Korea’s do – they let a puny shrimp of a country talk tough without being laughed at.

    With or without nukes, Britain is no threat. Nukes are simply Britain’s last vestige of a claim on P-5 impunity.

      • Bobm

        I cannot see in what circs Washington would allow first use by UK.
        We heard this morning how Portillo, Fallon’s predecessor has described our “independent deterrent”.

        Private Eye carried a piece recently that highlighted the fact that all the Trident software is designed, and presumably backdoor manipulable, by its US makers.
        Thus, when the recent test firing went wrong, it wasn’t the RN that detonated the missile.

        Leaving aside diplomatic niceties it is hard to imagine Washington not wanting to maintain fail-safe control over a weapon as unreliable as this.

        Elsewhere it’s been suggested that NR was hard on Fallon, today.
        If he’d really been serious he’d have asked about war crimes, WMDs, May’s “Christianity”, and what Jesus would do.

        • Republicofscotland


          Well Bob, in my opinion, like the Eastern bloc nation’s hosting US weapons Britain, would be a first strike point.

          We are afterall the 51st State, Washington would sacrifice us all before a strike on the US.

          Incidently Bob, its was one of the Marx brother’s Zeppo, who designed and built the clamp that held the atomic bomb on the Enola Gay. I wonder how many laughs Zeppo raised in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not many I bet.

          • Habbabkuk

            Two questions to you, RoS:

            1/. Do the Eastern European members of NATO host US nuclear weapons (I notice you wrote “US weapons”)?

            2/. If they do, was such hosting forced on them or did they ask for those weapons (or, at a minimum, freely accept them as a part of agreed NATO defence policy)?

          • Bobm

            Fred says that the missile auto-ditched, but the article he cites says that the “range controller” did the necessary.

            This is clear evidence that US operatives/programmes were in play for the test launch.
            Why not at all times? We LEASE these things from Washington, providing much appreciated funding.
            The FOI stuff is fascinating.
            They tell us they are totally in charge, at length, but won’t disclose their rules of engagement. The reasons they give don’t, actually, stack up, in game theory, I suspect: especially as there is no nuclear-armed opponent in view.

  • Max

    As a parent, I don’t give knives to my two arguing sons if I want to see peace and harmony between them.

    The logic of deterrency is not only a false logic, made up by very manipulative minds to appease critics, but just plain murderous. Those who support Trident don’t have to be fascists, no, but they do have to be really sick in the head or really mentally challenged.

    Defense secretaries in the West who support nuclear weapons, and who support their ongoing maintenance by stealing from taxpayers, are far more deranged and criminal than any North Korean dictator. They belong behind bars as they are extremists and serious threats to the public peace.

    It is really very sad that there are still people in the so-called West, who had the benefit of a not-so-bad education, who do not understand these things, and go along with the consensus that we are superior morally to North Korea, Iran or Venezuela. Very sad.

    But as always, I suspect I am preaching to the converted here.

    • Habbabkuk


      “As a parent, I don’t give knives to my two arguing sons if I want to see peace and harmony between them.”

      The analogy is so flawed as to be meaningless. Who was the “parent” of the US and the USSR in the period when the two of them first acquired nuclear weapons? Or, indeed, when any of the other present nuclear powers acquired theirs?

  • Peter

    Things look bleak.
    Let’s bomb Krim…. Krim? You mean Kim!
    Well whatever Kim Krim Iraq Syria its all the same.

    As you said “you can’t deter a lunatic”

1 2 3

Comments are closed.