There are members of our society who positively drool with delight at the prospect of having nuclear weapons. They believe it helps us strut our stuff on the world stage. You will even hear them crowing about us ‘punching above our weight.’ Ring any bells Mr Cameron? Mr Hammond? Mr Blair?
These people are morons. Some of them are corrupt morons who seek to make their fortunes by promoting the deadliest weapons on the planet. They do this by walking out of civil service, political or armed forces jobs and signing on with the weapons makers. They then use their so-called ‘good offices’ and connections to persuade a reluctant public to cough up vast sums of moolah for weapons we can never use.
Absolute bloody madness.
Current threats come from terrorists largely created by our empirical endeavours on the world stage. Thank you very much Mr Blair. For making us all so much less safe. Not that you will be too troubled by the anger and disgust of us mere mortals as you are by now quite barking.
Iran want their own nuclear weapons and who can blame them. They are surrounded by states with nuclear weapons. Their near neighbours Israel allegedly hold a couple of hundred alone. Around the world unequal and opposite forces are at work.
There are only 9 states with nuclear weapons (including Israel who have always denied it despite the best and bravest efforts of Mordechai Vanunu) who form a club of the ‘haves’. They are reluctant to encourage others to join their club and may even launch military attacks on Iran to uphold that stance. The overwhelming majority of countries do not own nuclear weapons. They do not want proliferation either but they are not hypocritical about it. South Africa stand alone as the only country to date to get rid of them.
Anyone who is comfortable with the prospect of countries having nuclear weapons should consider Pakistan.......and North Korea. Enough said.
At the change of government and the appointment of a new Prime Minister, a strange little ritual takes place. Inside the safe of each of our nuclear attack submarines is a top-secret document written by the previous PM. It contains detailed instructions to the commander of how he is supposed to respond should the UK come under a nuclear attack. The new PM has to write down what they want the Commander of the sub to do. The previous letter is destroyed. As the sub could be on patrol, hidden deep in a distant ocean, this is not straightforward. One test apparently is to listen to broadcasts from Radio 4. In the horrendous event of a nuclear strike it is believed Radio 4 would go off the air. The Commander would be then under pressure to find out what has happened - if this followed a period of international tension then the culprit(s) could be clear. Even then the message from the PM could be not to retaliate but to sail to somewhere like Australia and take it from there. It could be to launch everything at a perceived attacker - but will the Commander obey? Given widespread nuclear devastation what would be the point? And what would the Americans say? They have ultimate control of the weapons and may say yay or nay.
But what if it had been the work of a suicide bomber with a knapsack-size nuclear weapon? Or a series of similar attacks? Who is the commander then supposed to obliterate? These and similar issues need airing and clarifying before any decision is made to spend further untold billions on weapons which, if they have to be used, will mean that human beings are in a parlous state.
All of this is a result of generations of voters electing men with little willies who mask their lack of manhood by association with weapons - the more deadly the better. In strictly humanitarian terms it has been a seriously bad move for the human race. Be assured - whatever can go wrong - will go wrong.
We would have been a lot safer if we had bought these emasculated creeps a bright red shiny sports car each.