Inside Story - Does the UK need a nuclear deterrent?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- British politicians have voted on an issue that will have a profound impact on the future of the country's security. They have overwhelmingly voted to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system.
Britain's nuclear submarines are expected to be decommissioned some time after the year 2030. And for the past 10 years, there's been debate over what should replace them.
New Prime Minister Theresa May has said she wouldn't hesitate to launch a nuclear strike. And that Trident is a crucial pillar of Britain's security.
But is this kind of system still relevant? And can nuclear power really protect the world's superpowers?
Presenter: Adrian Finighan
Guests:
Paul Ingram - Executive Director of the British American Security Information Council.
Doug Bandow - Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.
Grant Christopher - Research Assistant at the International Centre for Security Analysis at Kings College London.
- Subscribe to our channel: aje.io/AJSubscribe
- Follow us on Twitter: / ajenglish
- Find us on Facebook: / aljazeera
- Check our website: www.aljazeera.com/
The UK MUST MAINTAIN an independent nuclear deterrence. It is very important for the whole of Europe to have at least two countries with nuclear weapons. It also allows the UK to pursue its own foreign policy. The UK's and France's nuclear weapons keep Europe safe.
I’d rather spend the money on a holiday
Having two nuclear powers in Europe is better than none. If Ukraine had even one nuke; million troops on border would not mean anything. Invading nuclear arm country is not same as none nuke country.
@@jordlc3480 Ukraine gave up their nukes, now some Ukrainians are permanently on holiday.
@@jordlc3480 tell that again
@@jordlc3480 Putin laugh to you 🤣
It's not just the UKs security but the whole of NATOS security! And the comonwealth!
Turns out...yes
After WW1 there was a debate on whether we should continue producing tanks and aircraft that debate was still going on when Hitler was creating the Panzers and the Luftwaffe. By the time Germany was proving its military superiority it was too late, our tanks and aircraft though not technically inferior were beaten by far superior tactics. Would this of happened if there was not a debate on whether these weapons should be used or were still relevant, but rather how they should be used? my point is although we cannot see the point in having these weapons now history has taught us that we should not dismiss these weapons just because we can not imagine ever having to use them as the future could be very different to how we expect or imagine it could be.
Just wondering if making a weapon you'll never use is as mad as Hitler thinking he can rule the world........ it's a close one
@@dantaylor7344 no it's not , nuclear weapons are what stopped the cold war becoming ww3
joe caterman Absolutely totally undeniably correct.
Something CND and their kind forget, exasperatingly.
Yes it does!
4:54 he just... doesn’t... get it
Also Britain and France both provide the nuclear deterrent for Europe! And they both need to.....
I agree. I'm a lefty liberal pacifist . France and The UK could obliterate Russia and China combined on their own. Peace is here because we have these weapons. The budget spent on these weapons is no where near what we spend on health and social welfare and it keeps us 100% safe from invasion. We forget that Labour Government was in charge when all our major modern day jets and weapons were developed.
I agree
1. They don't and 2. no they don't.
@joe caterman 1 Nope 2. Nope
@joe caterman Pretty much
trident does not have 8 missiles but 16 missiles
Exactly! And there British built warheads but American and British launch systems!! These guys are so wrong!
Yes but they choose to carry only 8.
So so glad that the government renewed trident, and I hope to god we always have a pm that’s willing to use them if needed
turns out the answer is yes
interesting watching this in March 2022, as Russia invades Ukraine using their nuclear capability to prevent (deter?) outside interference.
Yes it does. China has them Russia has them. Plenty of countries aspire to have them and a competent delivery system.
And we build the nuclear warheads that go into the delivery system.
Who in there right mind would waste their time attacking the UK?
every middle east mad man look what happened to lee Rigby imagine they had that in there arsenical
Stetson Griffin..please re- phrase that...who in their right mind would attack Britain? That's better...Thank you.
And how can a nuclear weapon defend the UK population against a two bit terrorist ?
In the past 1000 years we have fought off countless attacks and invading enemy's just because u are so short sighted u think it's not possible doesn't make it so
Ask Hitler hahaha
This aged so badly. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
RT and Al Jazeera..you must be promised very, very good pensions to work on here (Putin uses his cash wisely) - watching you, watching us, watching you, comrades...it's all about presentation (*whispers* but the best still are made on Saville Row - UK)
Well well well.... glad that Labour isn't in charge
Yes it does. And violence truly exists: Nuclear weapons won't simply 'un-exist', and when war escalates you need a deterrent to let the enemy know there is no winning.
Yes it does. Especially with the UK breaking up. If England wants to be at all relevant in the future then it needs it them.
very big yes
and other should shutup
Nope, Only one nation has ever used an atom bomb in conflict and THEY just happen to sell Trident to us! You're so obtuse I won't respond to your silly reply.
+dan taylor never asked but british government knows the best and they will good decision for the country at large
As now we are out of Europe
Waste of 25 minutes the answer is NO.
Still think we don't need a deterrent?
Potential advancement of “new” military technology and potential buy-in into disarmament institutions should make countries give up the ultimate weapons systems that provides security better than any other military capabilities? I’ve not seen someone reveal their intellectual ineptitude with such confidence.
Yes 100%
Surely I cannot be the only person who thought it madness for the UK to rid itself of all but trident. If let us say due to financial restraint's the Navy has at sea just one vessel and remember the policy is for thier to be at least one at sea always further imagine if our enemy call him say Ivan should locate & destroy said vessel then we would be helpless, my point being should we at least and yes at cost return to dual strategy of SSBN's and a free fall (gravity) component similar if not the same as WE 177.
Comparing a smartphone to an old control systems in submarines is simply out of place. Its not about quadro whatever processor to play some stupid games but reliability in logic systems, to last without failure.
To protect its foodbanks ?........what an absolute joke little England is !
'The chilling logic of mutually assured destruction is still with us'. I do not find the logic 'chilling', in a counter factual world, where nuclear weapons did not exist, there may already have been a world war III. 'If you want peace be prepared for war'.
Scrap the weapons!! What’s the point of having them and not being able use them without America’s say so!!
☮️☮️
A working border would do just for now but yes, we do need an independent nuclear deterrent. But ours isn't independent. We're part of NATO. America runs NATO. So it's not independent.
A good dose of E.M.P from so called out of date "Nuclear Weapons" would render all your modern electronics completely useless!!!!
EYE YON
I'm with the late Lorna Arnold and Corbyn on this one
and you're a fool
There are so many of these shows about Western Countries but NEVER does it ask Russia or China! Why not? These shows are a waste of time to watch, pure foolishness and at worst autocratic disinformation.
why can people not get on we are on human ffs lets just get on
Bandow: "I don't think he (Trump) is going to be President" ... Oh dear.
Lol
Does Britain have anything worth defending?
No, waste of 25 minutes.
If we didn't have nukes ww3 would have happened right after ww2 stalin was a psychopath there is no way he wouldn't have kept going after he reached berlin
Yes we need to to stay a relevant threat to Russia and foreign powers
when everyone in world is prepareing security of their nation
if you show weaknesses than other nations can take advantage of weaker countries
Please keep our nuclear weapons although nuclear war might occur our country should win, at least scrap trident and use fusion weapons. If you discontinue weapons off mass destruction I will support anti uk propaganda and be ashamed to be British.
The whole point of nuclear war is that it’s un-winnable. That is why no one partakes in it.
Hail Britannia! A former power crumbling to dust.
Mark Crasto...don't bet on it...you will lose your money.
crumbled, past tense mate!
What do you lot have a rusty tank
EYE YON