trident-nuclearBetween them, nine countries in the world have roughly 15,000 nuclear weapons. That’s enough to wipe out human civilisation several times over. Even a “limited” nuclear exchange of a hundred or so warheads could cause catastrophic environmental damage, including “global ozone loss on a scale never observed”.

So, do we really need more nukes? Over 90% of nuclear weapons are owned by the USA and Russia, and both President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump have committed to increasing their countries’ respective nuclear arsenals. Shouldn’t we be working on reducing our capacity to bring about a radioactive apocalypse with the push of a button?

France and the UK are both recognised nuclear states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Between them, they have over 500 warheads. Do they really have any strategic use, or would they just make Europe a bigger target in the event that nuclear war did break out? Could Europe send a pro-disarmament message to Russia and the USA if it became a UN-designated “nuclear-weapon-free zone” like Africa and South America? Or is such talk unrealistic? Now that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, is it impossible to put it back in?

Curious to know more about Britain and France’s nuclear arsenals? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).EUCOM_Nuclear_weapons

We had a comment from Barry, who thinks the UK should be the first to unilaterally dispose of its nuclear weapons. If a nuclear war ever started, he writes, then having weapons of this nature would not make “one iota of difference”. He believes Britain would anyway never use “The Bomb” without US approval.

To get a reaction, we put Barry’s comment to Dr. Oliver Thränert, Head of the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the ETH Zurich university in Switzerland. What would he say to Barry?

thraenertUK nuclear weapons are under national command, so they can be used if the UK government decides so. But the main purpose of these weapons is to deter war. Because the UK nuclear forces not only serve the purpose of Britain’s national security, but also contribute to the security of the NATO Alliance, a unilateral nuclear disarmament effort would have ramifications that would go beyond Great Britain.

For another perspective, we also spoke to Varinder Bola, Parliamentary Officer for the Nuclear Weapons Policy Liaison Group at the British American Security Information Council (BASIC). What would he say?

VarinderHaving nuclear weapons actually makes you more of a target, as adversaries might take you out before you launch. With the emergence of new technology, if SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) become detectable that makes this dynamic particularly pertinent. There’s a lot to be said for the point that there really are no scenarios in which we would realistically contemplate use of UK nukes without the US. In my view, it’s more that we think they are an effective way of burden sharing (and staying up with the US at the top table).

We also had a comment from Bálint, who thinks the threat of nuclear war is exactly what keeps us safe from nuclear war. As long as nuclear weapons exist, Bálint believes it is necessary to keep the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept alive and thus our countries – paradoxically – safe.

Would Oliver Thränert agree with Bálint’s analysis?

thraenertFrom a logic point of view, we do not know, for we cannot know why an event – here a war between great powers – did not occur since 1945. But I do believe that it is plausible to argue that the existence of nuclear weapons contributed to the prevention of large wars. However, nuclear deterrence might fail, and if it does, the damage would be huge. So if you think in historical terms, at some point in history mankind should manage to get rid of nuclear weapons, but the political conditions for such a step are to be met. In particular, a global and intrusive verification regime all which all states could rely would be needed in order to prevent clandestine nuclear programs.

Finally, how would Varinder Bola respond? Does he think nuclear weapons actually make us safer?

VarinderIf we have nuclear weapons, then Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a superior strategy to strategic dominance, an idea that has some frightening traction in Washington these days. But that’s part the problem.. we think people in high places believe in MAD but all actions suggest that they don’t. It’s worth noting that the US officially has a war-fighting counter-force strategy, aiming its nuclear weapons at Russia’s nuclear weapons and that in itself encourages instability. Nuclear weapons do not keep us ‘safe’ in any real sense of the word, they only make our opponents think twice before annoying us. There is still the great danger of accident and miscalculation, and that has to be a worry with personalities like President Trump and Kim Jong-Un in power.

Should Britain and France give up their nuclear weapons? Does having nuclear weapons actually make us a bigger target? Or, paradoxically, is it nuclear weapons that actually help keep us safe? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Defence Images


677 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Cãlin Rednic

    No. Doing so won’t determine other nuclear powers to act the same way, but it will only place Europe in a weaker position of influence.

  2. avatar
    Sebastiano Schavoir

    If every G8 country agreed to dismantle their nukes, it would not be so crazy. While they would still be in the dismantling phase, if one of them thought to maintain them secretly, well, then t ey wouldn’t be able to use them as deterrent, simply because officially they would/should be dismantling them. So, th e main purpose of having them would be taken from them. And then, those minor fascistoid states who didnt commit to it and who are still having them, well, if they used them they would be crushed afterwards, because dropping one or two would not annihilate a targeted country. So, I think theres little risk in agreeing to dismantle them.

    • avatar
      Jayden Hawkins

      Well now of days nukes can wipe out entire countries so it would be a big deal. Russia has nukes that can blow up 42% of the US and other countries have ones close to that so yes it could annihilate an entire country

  3. avatar
    Jean-Jacques Eiza Lauture

    Good question but do not call it a “french or UK issue”, these is not at all related to these citizens interest. All nuclear staff is promoted and maintained by the main financial groups, mostly for military Industrial complex profits. So it would make sense to reverse the approach and instead of following a state-client serving these groups interest, we just would send them and “administrative bomb” asking them to share all their profits hidden in fiscal paradise, with Budget support for all the weak states and world wide poor classes. We just would replace a destruction process by virtuous circle. Today, there is too much connection between the international crime finance and the “accepted normal finances” and such virtuous circle, has no place defined yet in that cynical scheme.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      Difficult to follow but If you are claiming that nuclear weapons are there for the profit of arms manufacturers then you are wrong, apart from maintenance there is very little profit in a weapon you don’t use. A major cost in these weapons is the delivery system and the money required to replace the (conventional) missiles Trump launched at Syria the other week will create far more income for the defense industry than his nukes

  4. avatar
    Bobi Dochev

    If everybody else does… The only country that should be prohibited to posses Nuc, as the only one that use it is US!

  5. avatar
    Mauro Scimia

    Everybody should. Nuclear power should be given up completely, not just warfare-related one. We have collected enough experiences and knowledge to attest its unsafety and ban it (Chernobyl, Japan).

    • avatar
      Pedro Alves

      Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy operate on completely different principles.

    • avatar
      Mauro Scimia

      Not sure what you mean. Nuclear energy carries a risk associated with technical failure. Nuclear weapons carry risks associated with technical failure AND human will. I am interested in absolute risk, hence one prevailing on the other doesn’t matter much.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      Interesting statistics about nuclear safety, seems it should be the last energy source to be banned?

      Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

      Coal – world average, 161
      Coal – China, 278
      Coal – USA, 15
      Oil – 36
      Natural Gas – 4
      Biofuel/Biomass – 12
      Peat – 12
      Solar/rooftop – 0.44-0.83
      Wind – 0.15
      Hydro – world, 0.10
      Hydro – world*, 1.4
      Nuclear – 0.04

      (Source: The Energy Collective)

    • avatar
      Walter

      Please inform yourself…..please….Nuclear energy has proven to be one of the safest forms of energy as well being the largest source of Carbon Free energy in the world…..France get close to 75% of its energy from Nuclear reactors and has been using Nuclear since 1974. In 2016,Nuclear accounted for 20% of total use energy and 60% of the US clean energy. Fossils fuels are killing the planet and Solar and wind are not advancing fast enough…even with billions of dollars in subsidies they only contribute less than 7%(wind is 5.5% and solar is 0.9%) of the US’s total energy use…Nuclear power is safe…look up gulf of mexico oil spill facts then look up Fukashima and ask yourself which do you prefer then remember, in 2010 BP spill = 4.9 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, then in 1991 over 1 billion barrels of oil were burned in Kuwait…then realize that in the 2010s the average number of large oil spills or a spill over 700 tonnes is 1.7 spills per year.

      Cheronobyl was due to faulty Soviet design and lack of upkeep, Japan was due to it being hit by a 9.0 earthquake then a tsunami with waves between 43 and 49ft then another aftershock…..0 have died from Radiation while 15,000 died due to the earthquake and Tsunami..WHO estimated that lifetime cancer risk would increase by about 1% for infants in the area…and a somewhat increased chance of thyroid cancer which is the most survivable cancer at 94% survival rate
      Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight

      Radiation deaths at Chernobyl were also statistically undetectable. Only 0.1% of the 110,645 Ukrainian cleanup workers, included in a 20-year study out of over 500,000 former Soviet clean up workers, had as of 2012 developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident, 31 died in the fires and direct radiation inside the plant.. and Reactor number 3 kept producing electricity till 2000
      So please get informed…

  6. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    è un enigma che non sò dare risposta. Quello che mi sembra illogico è che accusano Paesi di possedere armi di sterminio e gli si va a fare guerra per l’orrore .Chi va a fare guerra per l’orrore sono gli stessi che hanno armi di sterminio a casa loro e le piazziano anche a casa degli altri contro la loro volontà per “difenderli” . Tutto questo non ha buon senso . It is an enigma that I can not answer. What seems illogical is that they accuse countries of possessing weapons of extermination and go to war for horror. Those who go to war for horror are the ones who have extermination weapons at home and also place them At the home of the others against their will to “defend them”. All this does not make sense

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      io non ho usato la parola “armi nucleari” , ho detto “armi di sterminio” ( di massa ) perchè se togli il primo , che ancora non sono state tolte e inserisci il secondo non cambia nulla

    • avatar
      Paolo Ortenzi

      É la realizzazione di un vecchio proverbio tedesco “Chi non porta le proprie armi, porterà quelle degli altri”.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      poi dopo che hanno attaccato e ucciso il “dittatore” scoprono che quelle armi per cui era stata fatta la guerra non le aveva e chiedono scusa…..e il Paese è in caos….succede ed è successo anche questo. Poi scopri che le banche private internazionali , quelle che indebitano popoli, hanno azionisti che vendono armi usate per le guerre ed hanno anche barche private che fanno i “salvataggi” a pagamento facendo da taxi per il traffico umano riempiendo di immigrati i Paesi estranei a quella guerra , E’ un affare sporco mondiale . Come se ne esce ?

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      poi dopo che hanno attaccato e ucciso il “dittatore” scoprono che quelle armi per cui era stata fatta la guerra non le aveva e chiedono scusa…..DOPO eh e il Paese è in caos….succede ed è successo anche questo. Poi scopri che le banche private internazionali , quelle che indebitano popoli guadagnandoci , quelle banche internazionali finanziano guerre guadagnandoci ancora ….e guadagnano anche con i “salvataggi” con barche private facendo da taxi per il traffico umano riempiendo di immigrati i Paesi estranei a quella guerra , Prima li indebitano, poi fanno guerre ed infine sono trafficanti di esseri umani E’ un affare sporco mondiale , ma sporco sporco ! Come se ne esce ?

  7. avatar
    Любомир Иванчев

    No, these should be the last countries in the world to give up their nuclear firepower. As long as there are countries like Iran and North Korea, Europe needs to keep a superior firepower in order to keep them at bay.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Our deterrent strenght isn’t for EU!

    • avatar
      Любомир Иванчев

      Last time I checked France was in NATO and was an ally of most of the other EU members that are also in NATO.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      And? Don’t we pay enough for others?

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      It’s what makes us independant from others countries in order to not live what happened us last century, because you believe we need NATO?! We saw where this game game of alliances brought us twice… Sorry, now, we’re independant.

    • avatar
      Любомир Иванчев

      Wether we need NATO or not is another question. The fact is our countries have signed this pact under international law.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      mi dice la Corea del Nord in quale guerra è stata invischiata ? Dopo che mi ha detto quante guerre ha fatto la Corea del Nord mi dice quante ne hanno fatte gli inglesi , francesi e USA ? Questo dato è importante per capire molte cose perchè non si capisce più chi sono i terroristi del mondo

  8. avatar
    Lynne Warner

    If they want to roll over and give in to being taken over by Iran, Islam or even by the chubby boy in North Korea. Why not!

    • avatar
      Steve Pock

      Because we need to be able to defend ourselves better in my view,besides why not who else will do it? James Kennedy.

    • avatar
      Steve Pock

      James Kennedy oh yes and to invade Ireland AGAIN.. ……………joke by the way.

    • avatar
      David Coughlan

      Get the weapons out of Scotland. If they are so safe, they can park their subs on the Thames outside Parliament so the can see their deterrent out the window.

    • avatar
      Elle Wilky

      We’re not even in charge of the nuclear weapons in the UK, the Yanks are, so all w are are sitting ducks for storing hem for the Yanks. The bombs are not protecting our interests at all.

    • avatar
      Steve Pock

      David Coughlan they are fine at Faslane fella ,All the locals want them to stay many jobs depend on it.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      @ David Coughlan
      They are at Faslane for strategic reasons for quick access to deep water (the Thames being slightly shallower), they are not “dumped” there as some token imperialist symbol as the SNP would have you believe

      @Elle Wilky
      You’ve already made that claim on this thread and the answer is still the same, i.e. the letters of last resort (authority to use) held in each Trident equipped submarine are sighed by the UK prime Minister, not the US president

    • avatar
      Paolo Ortenzi

      Elle Wilky UK have their own nuke arsenal.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      Steve Pock la vostra non è stata difesa, nessuno vi ha attaccati mentre voi avete attaccato tutti, state in tutte le guerre . che si sono fatte . Non usare la parola “difesa” , offende l’intelligenza. Potete anche distruggere il mondo per la vostra prepotenza ma siete dei terroristi assassini

    • avatar
      Steve Pock

      Our new /old enemies James Kennedy.

  9. avatar
    Jeanne Kerbellec

    at this time of many problems and threats all over the world, even though we are talking about nuclear weapons, the right time to suppress these weapons has not come yet unfortunately…daesh, trump and North Korean and Erdogan in Türkey have to slowly down their pretentions then we may talk about put an end to the fear of war and definitely drop armements…

    • avatar
      Merry Fitzgerald

      Why Erdogan? Quelle est la menace venant d’Erdogan? Il serait temps d’arrêter la turcophobie et la démonisation du leader turc.

    • avatar
      Jeanne Kerbellec

      si vous voulez adorer le grand saint erdogan rien ne vous en empêche, mais à mes yeux et celui de bon nombre de ses concitoyens il est le diable personnifié et rien ne nous fera changer d’avis, troll ou non…

    • avatar
      Stanislaw Gadomski

      Marcin Osiekowicz They only (!) want to have back this what was Russian. Warsaw after Poland partition was Russian longer than not….

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Marcin, take care little polnish, you’re in the middle!

    • avatar
      Aivars Liepa

      Stanislaw Gadomski russia over years had grabbed lots of what isnt theirs.

    • avatar
      Iasen Kostov

      You have a russian candidate for president – did you just fall from the moon or something ?

    • avatar
      Iasen Kostov

      Btw UK said the same thing when Germany took over half of Europe and then they wooped your sorry french ass so bad it is still blue 70 years later ;)

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Deterrent power is to keep France in peace, nothing else!

    • avatar
      Iasen Kostov

      That’s what your grand dad though – few months later he was licking the invading army’s boots. Divided Europe is failed Europe.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Since 1966, din’t you learn some history in your life? It’s what makes us independant from others countries in order to not live what happened us last century! We saw where this game game of alliances brought us twice… Sorry, now, we’re independant.

    • avatar
      Iasen Kostov

      If you were independent 70 years ago – you would be speaking German now as your 1st language ;)

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      We’re speaking american, is it better?

    • avatar
      Iasen Kostov

      Yes – it’s simple and easy to learn. Btw if you think you are being ass raped by US now – try leaving EU then You will see. Part of the idea of EU is to oppose the US/Russia hegemony. France (you will see it now with UK) alone will be a US yesman bitch.

  10. avatar
    Elle Wilky

    We’re not even in charge of the nuclear weapons in the UK, the Yanks are, so all w are are sitting ducks for storing hem for the Yanks. The bombs are not protecting our interests at all.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      If the Yanks are in charge why does every commander of a Trident equipped submarine hold a letter of last resort signed by the UK prime minister?

    • avatar
      Mattia Mingazzini

      English nuclear bombs codes are controlled by Uk govt, so they’re basically english

  11. avatar
    Oli Lau

    you really think a piece of papers such as a treaty done by bureaucrats will protect us from anything…

    • avatar
      Paul X

      Yep, just ask Neville Chamberlain about that one…

  12. avatar
    Mudasiru Jebbah Bello

    But the thing is that, existing residence can retained their residency for permanent residence, but new European must go online for entry clearance or embassy and stamped at the U.K airports, while Britain product will have trade marks of U.K not European union further, because exit means ”No answer” to international law, or intend to do them on ”Prima facie” as usual?

    • avatar
      Paul X

      Yes because 130,000 have been killed in total by nuclear bombs as opposed to 190,000 who have been killed in the past 10 years by terrorism…..murder is all about who holds the weapon

    • avatar
      JD Blaha

      Answer: to serve the interests if the US of A with in Europe – but it will no longer be in EU Europe, therefore irrelevant to the US empire.

  13. avatar
    Ramas Samar

    If Ukraine had not given up their nuclear weapons, and believed in those sweet tales of Russia/USA, there would never be a seizure of Crimea and war in the eastern Ukraine…So the outcomes of given up might be rather serious, especially in these mad days of North Korea, Iran, Russia…

    • avatar
      Andrew Jones

      something like 96% of the people voted to stay wioth Russia with a 83% turn out………. why should they not be with Russia?

    • avatar
      Ramas Samar

      Andrew Jones Because you live far away from the scene: we here are much closer to real events and know the whole different story…

  14. avatar
    Adam Penny

    Are you completely insane, with nuclear-armed Russia next door and hostile to our interests, as well as cheerfully annexing parts of its own neighbour countries?

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      It isn’t certainly to be used for defend others countries, just for us, France!

    • avatar
      Andrew Ells

      Germany should never be allowed any

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Germoney who’s dominate Europe, it isn’t enough?

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      It’s for France, not for EU, EU is peace they said!

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Sorry, but we don’t need others countries for that, we saw where this game of alliances brought us twice last century… We’re now independant!

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Thanks, the 1500 years old country!

  15. avatar
    Michał Skotnicki

    Britain can, they’re idiots and have no idea what to do with those anyway. France is another matter – after all, the EU needs to have some sort of strategic defense.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      “Britain can, they’re idiots and have no idea what to do with those anyway”…….. having one Trident equipped submarine “somewhere in the world” at all times seems to be a sensible use of a deterrent…..unless you claim to have some great expertise in nuclear weapons strategy that you could share?

  16. avatar
    Nikolaz Disuj

    ALL countries (not only France and Britain) should give up their nuclear weapons if they have any.

  17. avatar
    Azad Maruf

    Yes without regret at all….that planet is going to be damaged without reaching that ends were that weapons required to be used…That defence system they have is more than enough untill the end of life on this planet…

    • avatar
      Luis Terra

      Of course!!! Israel has a very bad record of humans rights abuse. It’s a pitty they forgot what the jewish people suffered in the past, and now they’re doing the same to the palestinians…. Sad sad sad

  18. avatar
    Hugo Costa Moreira

    No way Europe must have a European army with nuclear capacity and once and for all stop depending on American troops on European soil, it’s about time that Europe takes care of its own security. America would spend less and europeans would have real defense capabilities…with this I’m not saying give up NATO no, but if the EU as nuclear weapons, planes, tanks and ground troops with the hell don’t we have an European army ready with nuclear capacity, instead we depend on the Americans…about the nukes well we have Russia, China and the US with this weapons and Europe should give up theirs crazy and out of reality Europe can defend itself and should move on to an European army.

    • avatar
      Hugo Costa Moreira

      Rémi don’t be that inocent do you really believe that…do you believe that Europe will be sustainable without an army in our world??? When Russia, China and the USA invest more and more in military might come on…

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Then, we prefer to leave your dream, we saw where this game of alliances brought us twice last century!

    • avatar
      Paul X

      As the majority of EU countries refuse to even meet their spending commitments to NATO it’s very unlikely they will be willing to stump enough cash to create an army of any real significance. Even if it could create an army who would be in charge of it? You can’t fight a war by committee, 27 countries with 27 different agendas and 27 different sets of priorities would make it the most ineffectual force on the planet
      In reality the EU elite want a propaganda army to try and stir pride in an adoring public by appear on TV marching across a parade square carrying an blue starred ensign and taking the salute of Herr Juncker

  19. avatar
    Chris Betts

    Great idea. With States like North Korea and terrorists actively seeking to aquire such weapons what could possibly go wrong. That’s sarcasm by the way. No is the simple answer

  20. avatar
    David Logue

    WHEN RUSSIA CHINA NORTH KOREA AND THE LIKES OF IRAN GIVE UP THEIR MISSILES IN OTHER WORDS “NO” !!!!!

  21. avatar
    Faddi Zsolt

    USA, GB, Russia, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, South African Republic, Brazil! They should all fire their nukes in the Sun! There are no other possibilities to get rid off them!

    • avatar
      Sasha Naronin

      And then there would be nothing keeping them from having a large scale and super bloody conventional war.

    • avatar
      Faddi Zsolt

      Dorian Jakov Štern-Vukotić No, because I’m a stupid ignorant!

    • avatar
      Carl Holyoake

      Yep plus America has 80 thousand tons of nuclear waste already without any weapons . Now we built reactors to produce plutonium by pulling the fuel rods out early

    • avatar
      Adam Gadacz

      I don’t even trust Germany w/ an oven let alone nukes

    • avatar
      Carl Holyoake

      Nuclear powered ovens are definitely off the heat control isn’t reliable

  22. avatar
    Alex Wilson

    Yes, Multilateral disarmament. But getting the likes of Israel on board holds that back as they refuse to confirm nor deny their nuclear capability. As well as other problem powers with similar capabilities.

    • avatar
      Craig Shutt

      Yeah it’s Israel that prevents disarmament, not Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia, or guerrilla groups that try to obtain a dirty bomb.

  23. avatar
    Nick Bishop

    Of course they should but they will not. Either this or give them to everyone. Gold becomes worthless if everyone has it and the same would be true of nuclear weapons.

  24. avatar
    Stephen Kennedy

    15% of MPs have financial interests in companies that would benefit from renewal. Mutual total destruction isn’t winning. If we can’t afford enough money for the NHS, mental health services etc we definitely cannot afford to be a nuclear power. We need less of this shit, not more.

  25. avatar
    Arūnas Šilkas

    Yes!!! And do not forget to ask Russia to grant their sovereignty after giving up nukes :) Just like Ukraine did…

  26. avatar
    John Flinders

    You can never un-invent something like nuclear weapons. They are a deterrent, but many on here talking about a European army forget that there was one between 1939-45 many then did not like it. Before those start decrying that statement remember that oh the German army were battalions of Dutch, French, and other nations.

    • avatar
      Tom Schmit

      Uhmmmmm…. Fukashima? What is the relevance?

    • avatar
      Tom Schmit

      Uhmmmmm…. Fukashima? What is the relevance?

  27. avatar
    Jerzy Zajączkowski

    All indications are that these countries will become Islamic and nuclear weapons will fall into Islamic hands, and that is a threat to the world.

    • avatar
      Martin Green

      You can thank the eu open boarders for that.

  28. avatar
    Jerzy Zajączkowski

    All indications are that these countries will become Islamic and nuclear weapons will fall into Islamic hands, and that is a threat to the world.

  29. avatar
    Martin Green

    Hugo Costa Moreira the eu army lol and who is going to supply the soldiers ?
    If you want better security close the open boarders !!

    • avatar
      Martin Green

      Yea and yet look at the attacks that are going on !

    • avatar
      Martin Green

      Rémi Martin I like the map you have up :-)

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Give me a little “like”! ;)

  30. avatar
    Rémi Martin

    Of course! It’s what makes us independant from others countries in order to not live what happened us last century!

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      It’s what makes us independant from others countries in order to not live what happened us last century! We saw where this game game of alliances brought us twice… Sorry, now, we’re independant, international rights, did you heard about it?

    • avatar
      Troy Bennett

      Not for long. Macron is the death of France. After brexit all of Europe will be swallowed by Germany.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Saddly, you’re right, but somes frenchies resist…

    • avatar
      Tim Morgan

      We can well afford which is why we have the 5th most powerful military on the planet

    • avatar
      Carl Holyoake

      We are British, Britainna sank years ago along with the British empire , for now we are a insignificant tiny island being invaded by the middle east

  31. avatar
    In A Room In Hell

    Only when Israel gives up theirs. Now Europe needs protection against Israel

  32. avatar
    Michael Sands

    Not a chance,I got bullied as a kid,until my old dad taught me to fight,and as soon as you can fight back,no more bullying.
    With trident no bullying, you Lilly liveried liberals stick your heads in the sand,you’ll get fucked up the arse!!

  33. avatar
    Anthony Fletcher

    Yeah lets get rid of our one defense that stops other countries from completely obliterating us what a great idea. And when a country does send something very destructive our way and we have 5 minutes to live we can try to talk to them which is what Jeremy Corbyn said we should do and that sounds like a great idea, we are all about to die but if we can chat to them that might change things somehow

  34. avatar
    Rémi Martin

    Of course not! It’s what makes us independant from others countries in order to not live what happened us last century! We saw where this game game of alliances brought us twice… Sorry, now, we’re independant, international rights, did you heard about it?

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      Rèmi mi dispiace ma il tuo Paese è in torto marcio. La guerra che abbiamo vissuto il secolo scorso , è stata terribile l’abbiamo vissuta tutti ma poi è finita mentre la francia ha continuato., ha fatto vivere quell’orrore ad altri Paesi pur non essendo stata minacciata da nessuno …. Dio mio , riprendetevi ! Se adesso il mondo è nervoso è proprio a causa della politica estera anche e sopratutto francese. Ritornate umani !

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Car tu crois que j’apprécie la politique étrangère de mon pays? Sérieusement…

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      Alain Parguez ci spiega come è stato costruito questo mostro europeo e lo scòpo ( se state male la causa è solo vostra e stiamo male tutti per questo progetto VOSTRO CRIMINALE ) . Questo è successo in Europa DOPO le due guerre ma la Francia è andata oltre, in Africa , nel medio oriente….. ma voi popolo dove stavate ??? Avete creato cosi tanto dolore al mondo e non capisco perchè non l’avete fermata la VOSTRA politica , non quella degli altri. Il nucleare vi dovrebbe servire a proteggervi da voi stessi

  35. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    Ideally, nobody on earth should have the capacity to design, manufacture or possess nukes. Unfortunately, such wish remains an illusion- unsolvable by anybody from the Pope to the UN. Not too big a task for the EU though?

    Why mention the UK & France? Both are facing critical elections- (re) shaping the EU? Whose idea is that?

    “UN designated nuke free zone”? In order to pave the way for an EU army- lead by half a dozen of EU’s- so called co-presidents?

    Please EU, go to the UN and sell such idea on a global platform- not here! Meddling in other states elections maybe?

  36. avatar
    Anton Fester

    ….and as for labour’s ‘no nukes’ bollox. …talk about ‘bend me over fuck my arse raw and just call me Susan ‘….but since we are to become an ‘Islamic Shit hole ‘ just as well we have no nukes. ….fucking idiotic wankers. …

  37. avatar
    Shaun Mann

    I was a submariner so I know what’s happening in the real world…..if we get rid of our bombers …. start learning russian….i wont labour for this one reason

    • avatar
      Arron Karl Hughes

      You were a submariner?! You mean youre Namor!? Holy shit! This has made my day xD

  38. avatar
    Shaun Mann

    I was a submariner so I know what’s happening in the real world…..if we get rid of our bombers …. start learning russian….i wont vote labour for this one reason

  39. avatar
    Jockers Clink

    No no no. No. KEEP these missiles we want to show how we intelligent we are, We may have powerful weapons but they are there to say – keep the peace or else

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      To have access to world wide economy, international rights, did you heard from it?

  40. avatar
    Paul Bretherton

    There are 196 countries in the world.
    And NINE have nuclear weapons.
    It would only take ONE to launch and that would be the end of the world as we know it, and probably just the end full stop.
    Billions for a weapon we could only use to be sure that the world will end is ridiculous.
    It’s like having a petrol bomb in your house to deter burglars.

    • avatar
      James Bailey-Gray

      I was going through the comments and your made me me laugh one bomb to end the world lol shouldave ended when hiroshima was dropped then right this is the best deterrent ever made just the thought of having them put people off going to war the japanese had two of these dropped on them thereve see the results the americans told them to surrender and if they could go back I bet you they would surrender and save all those lives that were lost the world seen what these bombs could do and they then became the ultimate defence without these we probably would have had world war 3 by now millions of lives wouldave bin lost But I suppose thats ok so all the lives lost are worth not having a nuclear bomb then I suppose

    • avatar
      Paul Bretherton

      When America dropped the bombs on Japan they were secure in the knowledge that no other country had nuclear weapons. Just imagine the difference if Japan could have done the same to America. The point is that things have changed. Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD for short.
      I’m fully aware of history. However, times have changed, and so should we.

    • avatar
      Joe Ritchie

      Er nope…we use it every minute of every day. It is a deterrent. Other countries have it so we have to. It prevents them attacking us!

    • avatar
      Alan Foggie

      Yeah, except North Korea want to have them too.
      So, by that logic, you’d be ok with that. Because from their point of view it stops attacks.

    • avatar
      Paul Bretherton

      Name one country with nuclear weapons that would attack us if we didn’t have them. And by that logic, 187 countries should be at war.
      It’s a tired OLD argument, no longer relevant.

    • avatar
      Joe Ritchie

      North Korea a long way from having a credible device. They will be reigned in soon. Pajama man spouts off a lot…mainly to impress his own people. My view is, we would probably have had WW3 instead of the cold war. Only prevented from happening by the very existence of Nuclear weapons!

    • avatar
      Alan Foggie

      But who’s the next NK then. They see nukes and feel they need them “as a deterrent”.
      It probably did avoid WW3 but that was then. Cyber is the way forward not bombs.

    • avatar
      Joe Ritchie

      You’re probably right Alan but the genie is out of the bottle. It would be very foolish to get rid of ours whilst the rest of the world has them. America used theirs in the war for two reasons. 1st was to end the war in Japan and 2nd as a demonstration to Russia that they had gone far enough. The USSR would have been a much bigger place otherwise! Nuclear weapons are very complex bits of kit as is the science that goes into making them. That is the reason few countries have them.

    • avatar
      Paul Bretherton

      False logic.
      Nuclear weapons haven’t prevented:
      Vietnam. Korea. The Falklands. Afghanistan. Iraq (twice). To name but a few. Without venturing into Eastern Europe.

  41. avatar
    David Dreghorn

    Of course we need them, how else are we going to defend the food banks and rape victims bringing up children in poverty because they either can’t prove rape or are not able to seek help?

  42. avatar
    Case Roole

    There is little point in discussing “Britain” and “France” as if they are independent actors. Their status as de facto America colonies makes that their nuclear weapons are effectively under American control.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Because you believe I’m not for leaving NATO for this reason?

    • avatar
      Sébastien Ml Le Caviste

      You speak for England it’s true because there is a double key( even if the british tax payer is not really aware ;) )but France is indépendant in the use of our nuclear force.

    • avatar
      Sébastien Ml Le Caviste

      And dont speak of m’y country like it’s a colony when your country is the home of all the fu* ing junkies of europe

    • avatar
      Paul X

      So you think there is some sort of UK/US “double key” that even the British do not know about but apparently you do?…so where do you get your facts from o enlightened one?
      The truth is, In the event of things kicking off the commander of a trident equipped submarine can be delegated sole authority to use nuclear weapons, this delegation is authorised by the the UK Prime Minister, there is no American input required into this procedure

  43. avatar
    Aivars Liepa

    There is one modern country, that gave up nuclear weapons. It didnt end well for it later….

  44. avatar
    George H. Newman

    I would love no country to have nuclear weapons but that never happen. Best way for peace is by saying

    Shoot us we shoot back

  45. avatar
    Mike Edwards

    Now is one of the worst time’s to give them up. The world is slipping down the pan quickly.

  46. avatar
    Krzysztof Czarnecki

    No. Because someone will always have them, even if they say that they don’t have nukes anymore. And after official nuclear disarmment they will not be afraid to use it. And “they” does not have to be a country, can be also terrorists or some other unofficial group that bought the nukes that were supposed to be destroyed or made their own. It is very difficult to ensure that when destroying tens of thousands of warheads two or three won’t disappear and go to the black market, the temptation for profit is just too high. And it is impossible to ensure that every country will actually destroy all their nuclear weapons and not manufacture new ones in secrecy once they have officially claimed that they have destroyed them all, and shown a smoking pile of dissected missiles as a proof.

  47. avatar
    Maia Alexandrova

    USA, UK, France and Israel use the possession of nuclear weapons to strengthen their bullying power over other countries, to embolden them to start conventional wars easier and to give them a false sense of exceptionalism over others. THIS is all the wrong kind of behaviour that needs to be stopped.

    Russia, North Korea, India and Pakistan are the ones mostly relying on nuclear power to deter ANY type of military aggression on them. So it all comes down to reigning the 4 mad dogs of the world – USA, UK, France and Israel – who are usually resorting to military action as a FIRST resort and are the champions of foreign invasions since WW2. If they stop threatening and attacking, then there will be no need for defense against them and no need to possess nuclear weapons for deterrence.

    All countries need to dismantle their nuclear weapons, but that will happen only when there is a sufficient level of trust between them. However, trust cannot be built through force and submission, but only with good actions and open heart. This means cooperation. The more cooperation and mutual help, the less mistrust and hostility, the less need for weapons of any kind. This will only be achieved when the power of the gun is replaced with the power of the heart and no one believes in violence as a means to settle arguments any more. I hope it doesn’t take another world war everyone to understand that, because then it will be too late.

    07/09/2017 Lassina Zerbo, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban treaty Organization (CTBTO), has responded to this comment.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      “USA, UK, France and Israel use the possession of nuclear weapons to strengthen their bullying power over other countries”

      fanciful stuff, care to give any specific examples?…..personally I cannot ever recall the UK “bullying” another country with the threat of nuclear weapons

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      They are bullying other countries with military power in general, but the possession of nuclear weapons makes them even more arrogant and over-confident of themselves, so they easily decide to start wars and expend innocent civilian lives for their own agenda.

      Think about all wars that have happened since WW2 – who were the main aggressors and invaders? Isn’t it almost in all cases countries with nuclear weapons? This is what makes the world a more dangerous place.

      Who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council? Countries with nuclear power. As you can see, nuclear capability is extensively used for political pressure and UK does that, too.

      I wish that someone invented a weapon that can electronically disable the firing mechanisms of military planes, ships and submarines, so that anyone who threatens another country with aggression can be neutralised safely, without any loss of life. In the meantime, all nuclear weapons must go – they are not needed to establish peace in the world, they only prevent it from happening.

  48. avatar
    catherine benning

    Should Britain and France give up their nuclear weapons?

    Absolutely yes. And immediately. The cost to the tax payer is absurd. As it is not there for our use, should that be required. We have to get permission from the
    US as well as their assistance to use them. Are they going to give consent if it is them who has to be bombed by us?.

    Military force must only ever be used against a foe who invades or attacks us. It is a defence system not for attack dog or for invading other countries, as you presently insist on doing, because you do not agree with their systems of government. Or, more, because they reject joining in the madhouse of Globalisation. And all that means to the lives of each and every one of us. .

    We can defend ourselves without the nuclear option.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_IR50DIVKQ

  49. avatar
    Jokera Jokerov

    It is not for the EU to decide on British CASD. And the Commons have decided to keep it. 4 new boomers are already being planned. And they will cost less than the money Britain looses in the EU coffins for 2 years. I hope the first one will be named HMS Armagheddon.

    • avatar
      Stef Kostov

      Well also because their missiles can’t travel this far yet..

    • avatar
      Marko Martinović

      Each test is farther. Also this is not the point. Point is that without such weapons you can be bullied by those who do have such weapons, and others

  50. avatar
    Pan Sol

    no, no, no, they should start bombing with it Russia and China, plus India, these 3 countries but in danger our allies and their-our oil and gas in gulf area

  51. avatar
    Αναγέννηση

    The Force de Frappe which is the French military nuclear deterrence.against external aggression towards France needs to be legally merged into the structures of a EU DEFENSE FORCE making the European Union an global Military Superpower, that will quickly put a end to the British State sponsored Turkish Military invasion and occupation of EU member Cyprus since 1974 which is a British – Turkish alliance against the Americans in Cyprus since 1974 which resulted in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein Baathist dictatorship during the ascension process of Cyprus into the EU on May 1 2004, and the ensuing decade long American Military occupation of Iraq from 2003-2013. The French Nuclear Force, is part of the Armed Forces of France, is the third largest nuclear-weapons force in the world, following the nuclear triads of the Russian Federation and the United States. The French Nuclear Force needs to legally become the EU Defense Nuclear Force.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      EU is peace they said… So our deterrent power isn’t certainly for others countries, it’s for our independance!

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Yes, but this time, Germoney is the master without weapons, but is still occupied by US…

  52. avatar
    Michael Šimková

    Nuclear weapons reductions should focus on the US and Russia. Everyone else’s arsenal is a joke compared to them.

  53. avatar
    Bart Van Damme

    There will always be someone with nuclear weapons or with the potential to make them. It is therefore not realistic to ask any country to give up their only real military deterrent against them. Like it or not, nuclear weapons are out there, and they will always be. There is no way back, and rather than putting energy in trying to get rid of them, we should put energy in not giving other countries a reason to use them.

    • avatar
      Michael Šimková

      If there is one thing that I have learned from world events in this decade, it is that you assume that other people are necessarily reasonable at your peril.

    • avatar
      Yannick Cornet

      Then again. The problem with weapons as a deterrent is that you need to be serious about using them to be credible. And there is always the risk of someone wanting to use them. And the bottom line is we should not use them, ever. So i agree we need to work on the root causes of conflict. But imho maintaining this arsenal takes more energy and funding and is far more risky than dismantling it.

    • avatar
      Παυλος Χαραλαμπους

      To use such a weapon as a deterrent you must be sure that the other parties are resemble enough to care about what will happen to them if nukes start dropping from the sky. .are we sure that radicals all over the world are so credibility? Or that they even care if they going to destroy them selfs?

    • avatar
      Παυλος Χαραλαμπους

      Also an other thing chemical weapons also exist for at least a century but we managed to ban them so it’s possible to do same thing with nukes

    • avatar
      Bart Van Damme

      We do not have control over nuclear weapons worldwide, so we can only get rid of our own with absolute certainty. No one can guarantee that the other nuclear-capable countries will follow suit (and not keep a few behind) nor can we guarantee that other countries will not develop their own weapons in the future. As a result, getting rid of our onw nukes would not rid the world of nukes, it would just place us in a more dangerous situation. If 10, 20, or even 100 countries having nukes is something to fear, imagine a world where only one country has them.

  54. avatar
    Pedro Castro

    Nukes have been the biggest reason for peace since their development. So the answer is no imho

    • avatar
      Arthur Gustin

      two sides blades, what if it gets into the wrong hands ?

  55. avatar
    Athena Lambrinidou

    the word ‘deterrent’ stopped any attempts at disarmament for a least 27 years and got us to a world where North Korea has them now. Yes I say! France and the UK should absolutely give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for everyone else doing the same thing!

    20/03/2018 Susi Snyder, Nuclear Disarmament Programme Manager for the peace organisation Pax in the Netherlands, has responded to this comment.

    • avatar
      JD Blaha

      From France? the EU? Iceland?

    • avatar
      JD Blaha

      or the Russians that buy up London Real Estate? or the Chinese the invest in UK firms?

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Times can change, history showed us….

  56. avatar
    Arthur Gustin

    Depends what you mean by nuclear weapons, is it purely fire force or motorised through nuclear energy ?

  57. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    Merge them, perhaps. It’s absurd that France would ever threaten Britain with a nuclear strike or vice versa. On the other hand, Russia, China and the USA might otherwise feel they could act towards western Europe with impunity.

    Merging France’s nuclear capability with the UK’s would wean Britain off yankee geopolitical overlordship. Provided it took place under the auspices of NATO, the US needn’t feel threatened.

  58. avatar
    Franco Suarez

    Give up to whom? What these two tyrannical nations know is that technological superiority gave them the power to exploit and oppress in their on going colonial efforts. What the world needs is more countries armed and threatening the rest of the world with assured destruction in the name of peace, as done by the USA and its 900 bases and torture clandestine compounds to gain political and commercial advantages in the name of peace. Now, let’s pay the AmeriKKKans for their goodwill arm sells to NATO, before we, too, become the target of their political attacks with their FUCK THE EU politics and diplomacy, as North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, The Philippines, Mexico and others have already found out!

  59. avatar
    Георги Кънев

    Already exists very effective contra weapon against nuclear bomb carrying by rocket, which can destroy nuclear head without to ignite the bomb only through “cold” tearing off peace by peace. See joromachine http://www.kanevuniverse.com If we divide the machine into parts with size around 10000 km length (all machine is approximate 4 such peaces) then each part represent autonomously accelerator of pellets from uranium 236 and with velocity around 7000 km/s. Such bundle of pellets simply will disperse great plutonium or uranium of nuclear warhead into the Earth’s soil where it’s come from. These pellets cannot ignite the starting mechanism, because the velocity is so huge that there no time to heating the mechanism. G.Kanev

  60. avatar
    Derek Warner

    With PC Britain it would take several weeks to come to a desicion on whether to use a weapon which would be all too late and if some has already dropped a bomb on UK, well it won’t matter anyway. So why have such an expensive unlikely to ever be used weapon!! Same goes for the nuclear sub ——– use the money to improve the lot of the UK genuinly poor and pensioners!!!!!

    • avatar
      Παυλος Χαραλαμπους

      Nuclear weapons is what holding putin from taking over Europe? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………something tells me that if they start nuke each other it will be the last of our worries who is going to be the ruler of the wasteland for the last but horrible weeks of our lives. ..

    • avatar
      Makis McMak

      No one is nuking no one. It is called deterrence and it works. Google it.

    • avatar
      Nikola Arnaudov

      Rémi Martin ROFL, you got the Russian flag all wrong. Also, a few million people from the Baltics will disagree with you.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Not my problem, France has to be friend with every land around the world! We’ve got certainly more links with Russia as with others EU members! Who cares about Baltics? What is there Russia doesn’t have? I don’t see very well!

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      EU is peace, so why are you afraid from our neighbor? Do you need to invent an enemy?

    • avatar
      Nikola Arnaudov

      let’s learn from history: how exactly did Poland threaten nazi Germany? they were also “peace”

  61. avatar
    Mark Sjøberg

    That is idiotic, especially with trump at thee helm in America, worsening relations within Nato. Of course they shouldn’t, its a deterrent.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Ukraine signed a treaty to give them back, France and UK are permanents members of ONU…

  62. avatar
    Dragos-Ronald Rugescu

    It’s an obviously smart choice for sheep to give up weapons when surrounded by wolves. It’s tolerant, it’s emancipated, it’s civilized, it’s multicultural. Stroke of genius! Why didn’t anyone think of this?!

  63. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    armi nucleari no, armi nucleari si ,cambia poco. Chi non impedisce le guerre troverà comunque un arma, un modo per farle. A parer mio ,come è nel mio Paese e come credo sia giusto , va messo in Costituzione come noi lo abbiamo nell’articolo 11, quelle esatte parole , non simili, Ancora non basta, perchè chi è guerrafondaio troverà comunque un modo per escludere quell’articolo e allora va messo in Costituzione la partecipazione del popolo alla direzione della cosa pubblica della vita politica. articolo 3 . Il popolo non è stupido e se lo si fa partecipe ( l’eccellenza ) evita che siano gruppi oligarchici di potere a dirigere un Paese. La Costituzione italiana ( la vostra non lo sò ma sò per certo che la nostra è avanti in principi sani ) e tutto l’apparato , fa da protezione , fa da barriera. Noi lo abbiamo . La Costituzione italiana è forse la migliore Costituzione per principi sani e voi ce l’avete eslusa con questi cavolo di Trattati ??? Che volete che diventiamo delinquenti come voi ? (o come vi hanno fatte diventare a voi popoli esclusi , vittime e poco partecipi ) Piuttosto imparate ( e impariamo, anche noi abbiamo tanto da imparare da voi ma non su questo , su altre acose ) imparate a diventare giudiziosi, saggi e non imponeteci le vostre porcherie a noi, fate un passo indietro di umiltà

  64. avatar
    Jerzy Zajączkowski

    If the European country will be governed muslims, than the relocation of the weapon of mass destruction should be considered.

  65. avatar
    Marius Popescu

    Right. Also should open the gates to all the fanatics from Asia or Africa (oups ! this is allready happening).This way the end will be quicker .What an idiotical question !

  66. avatar
    Breogán Costa

    yep, like Ukraine… then another country (Russia) occupy their land and they cannot do anything.
    Everybody should give up their nuclear weapons, or everybody should have the right to have them, although it’s crazy

  67. avatar
    Sebastian Stadler

    Anyone who things there is a way back to a non nuclear world is a dreamer. So no. Not because its the good thing to do, but the right thing.

  68. avatar
    Christofer Sjöholm

    Yes. Fewer nuclear weapons should exist in the future. Humanity should keep a few but they should be kept communal by the international community.

    Arms race between nations or continents has nu future.

  69. avatar
    Micheal Pyner

    The UK doesn’t have a nuclear deterrent it cannot use weapons in a “first strike” without US permission….. additionally as Nancy Soderberg, the former US ambassador to the United Nations stated on newsnight ten days ago
    Trident was only of “symbolic” value, and its disappearance would make no difference to the balance of power. Wouldn’t abolition make us vulnerable to threats from Russia, she was asked. “No,” she replied the UK was under the Nato nuclear umbrella. For good measure she added that it was difficult to persuade countries such as Iran that they didn’t need nuclear weapons when countries such as Britain and France insisted on retaining them….. so much for and “independent” nuclear deterrent…..

  70. avatar
    Daniel Meternă

    Not just UK and France, but every nations that have it in possession. Imagine that the U235 is use in the atomic bomb at 99,98 % and in the CANDU atomic plant just 0,70 %. Now, HOW MUCH will reduce the consume of fossil combustible to produce energy for human kind? What kind a society we became? A destructive one? YES! :(

    • avatar
      Gabriel Pascu

      Vezi ca sunt niste “chestii”: Franta are peste 75 % nuclear, Anglia are si ea un procent mare. Asta inseamna ca un acord cu Rusia ar aduce independenta Occidentului fata de gazele (petrolul) Rusiei. Ori aia mor de foame. Nu stiu cum o sa fie…

    • avatar
      Daniel Meternă

      Gabriel Pascu e problema lor Să facă agricultură, au o țară imensă.

    • avatar
      Gabriel Pascu

      Daniel Meternă Voiam sa zic ca d-aia au clocit-o Franța si Anglia: ca au un mare procent de producție de energie pe nuclear!

    • avatar
      Bernhard Rohrer

      the whole point is that they never get used.

  71. avatar
    Jokera Jokerov

    It is a deterrent, not a weapon stricto senso. It is successful if it is not used. And it is for London and Paris to decide, because it is a British and a French achievement. Obviously you haven`t noticed that UK is leaving the EU, so at least half of the question is totally irrelevant if not stupid.

    • avatar
      Mika Nowack

      I totally agree. We have to defend against Russia and USA even if it is oy based on dissuasion.

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      Paranoid detected…By the way, Russia has some 7 or 8 times more nukes than France and the UK combined…

    • avatar
      Svetoslav Roussenov

      José Bessa da Silva You can call me paranoid and I can call you stupid and naive. The fact remains, France and the UK are no where near the authoritarian rule that Russia has experienced for the last 100 years and continues on to do so. Yesterday it was was Georgia, today it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it could be central Europe. But sure, I’m paranoid, just because I pay attention. And of course why do you have to care when you’re all the way from Portugal…

    • avatar
      Fabrice Bordier

      The Nuclear arsenal should be European, not British or French. Then it would be easier to maintain and renovate, this would push all European countries to get involved in their defense.

    • avatar
      Fabrice Bordier

      We can debate about it. Because if all nuclear weapons were abolished, nobody would fear anybody.
      Nuclear weapons are bad, but they are a big peace contributor at the same time.
      Should we abolish the nuclear weapons maybe we would end up in an era pre-world war two.
      It is paradoxical but the fact mink is now has the ability to destroy itself, then mankind has become somewhat wiser.
      Not saying mankind is super wise, but I think the mankind of 2017 is wiser than the one of 1914

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      Not with my taxes there will be one. The EU is not a state.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      You do know we are leaving the pointless EU don’t you ?

    • avatar
      Klaus Heindl

      Who said that is the EU´s business?

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      This bloody propaganda page never ask anything without second intentions…

    • avatar
      Martin van Boven

      I agree; I see many points asking for opinion on topics that have nothing to do with the EU, yet this is a page about the EU.
      Talk about manipulating people’s mindsets.

  72. avatar
    Florent Pirot

    We’d better keep the tactical (kilotonnic) and strategical nukes but drop “depleted” uranium nano and micro nukes which contaminate warfields for the eternity http://www.assopyrophor.org to understand these weapons that cause thousands of birth defects cancers and other illnesses

  73. avatar
    Klaus Heindl

    Germany doesn´t have nukes, doesn´t want them and doesn´t need them. Almost all Germans agree on this. I don´t see why the UK and France need them – they are not fundamentally different countries and are even farther away from potential trouble. Besides, huge amounts of money are wasted.

    • avatar
      Stephen Pockley

      Nothing to do with you.
      UK will keep them after all some EU countries could become our enemies again.

    • avatar
      Jean-Christophe Hmr

      Germany doesn’t need it because France and Britain have it.

    • avatar
      Klaus Heindl

      Well, it´s completely up to you to decide how to waste your money.

    • avatar
      Noel Mirković

      And than what? Praying for some new Trumpidiot in charge?

  74. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    Nuclear weapons are why we haven’t had a third world war yet. Why would you want to give up the ultinate insurance policy that you will never be attacked?

    • avatar
      Noel Mirković

      Arab countryes? Arab??? go back to your cave, find some peace of stone, take it and hit it with your head. Several times. Than think again about putting words arab and nuclear in same sentence.

  75. avatar
    Dave Whelan

    Ban nuclear weapons and let’s get the trenches dug out again. War will happen no matter what. Millions will die no matter what. But at the moment it’s a lot less likely because of the threat of nuclear weapons

  76. avatar
    Róbert Bogdán

    No, arms keep peace, weakness invites aggression. But we should carefully keep the world’s balance of power!

    • avatar
      Noel Mirković

      No, people keep peace and people sometimes, some of them is agressive. So, for begening improve yourself, that change you can make. Be peaceful, no excuses.

  77. avatar
    Olivier Duhamel

    Talks and debates VS actions and realisations >>the walk of “progress” in the nuclear military strategic area…
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions !
    When North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, … will give up their nuclear weapons and dirty radioactive bombs first, … starting from the less democratic dictatorship to “the most” democratic country, “in that way of progress” we then might perhaps do it also in Britain and France, that’s the rational answer to that debate… As far as those democracies are educated, wise and rational…
    Waiting for them first, also “waiting for Godot”…
    Whatever, that kind of decision, through PP30 takes 30 years at least to be applied. What about the true application of SALT I, SALT II, New START, … in countries where national security administration and agencies executives even lie to their own citizens and MP’s investigations council…
    Before the launch of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a petition letter signed by 70 active contributors of the Manhattan project among Leo Szilard who minded the nuclear bomb, never arrived on the desk of the president of the USA…

    Let’s think and debate about this, that’s a start, … making it real is another challenge…

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Given the mess Brussels has created with its obsession with ever closer integration you can only imagine what a disaster it would be if they had nuclear arms, fortunately the pointless EU is living on borrowed time and will collapse sooner rather than later.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      no Gioacchino . Articolo 11 della nostra Costituzione ….ti dice qualcosa? Eh…hai detto poche parole nessuna condivisibile . Bombe nucleari NO, per nessuno . Esercito europeo implica gli Stati Uniti D’Europa ed è un progetto fallito e accantonato. Una difesa condivisa fra Stati europei forse è realizzabile ma niente bombe nucleari.

    • avatar
      Gioacchino Giorgio Nastasi

      Balle..Una difesa Europea senza deterrenza nucleare in mondo multipolare nuclearizzato è una non difesa,poi le armi nucleari già in Europa ci sono,,anche in Italia,si tratta di potenziare con il contributo Europeo il nucleare Francese .Per tua informazione ,già l’Italia dispone di circa 70 testate per conto della Nato…

    • avatar
      Gioacchino Giorgio Nastasi

      Nella Costituzione non C’è scritto no bombe nucleari,già l’adesione alla NATO sarebbe una violazione??Nessuna Costituzione può vietare l’autodifesa e prescrivere il suicidio nazionale ed infatti la tua interpretazione è sbagliata e Superata..:)

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      No we don’t and forget any move in that way with my vote. What we need os to leave the EU and EU nationslists behind…

    • avatar
      Giannis Dimitrakis

      You need to be reminded that all arms under NATO flag are controlled by NATO. So any nuclear weapon is at the service of NATO. Do I also need to tell you who controls NATO or are we clear? :)

    • avatar
      Giacomo Della Rosa

      France has its own force de frappe and Britain has its own nuclear capabilities, which are independent from NATO. Don’t lecture me, bud. Ad for how NATO works, well you are right, we all know who is the senior partner!

  78. avatar
    Pedro Castro

    Nukes are deterents. They are the only reason there hasn’t been another conflict between major industrial countries. It’s sad realy but i believe they’re the reason millions of people are still breathing.

    • avatar
      Giannis Dimitrakis

      So its perfectly normal according to your thought for North Korea to have “deterrents”, right?

    • avatar
      Pedro Castro

      Giannis Dimitrakis nk is not a major industrial country.

  79. avatar
    Jerzy Zajączkowski

    Muslims have a much higher birth rate, which will make them win the election in future. All indications are that these countries will become Islamic and nuclear weapons will fall into Islamic hands, and that is a threat to the world.

  80. avatar
    Christofer Sjöholm

    A country that does allow a temporary majority to discontinue all its peoples access to the highest democratic assembly should by no means be allowed funding and fueling armsraces.

    The dark lord only knows what the majority will be fooled into doing, and how many it will affect in how great an area and how long a time.

  81. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    NO. USA is clearly no longer a good ally. UK has potential to become an enemy. Europe needs Nuclear Weapons to prevent Russia rolling in to Europe.

  82. avatar
    JD Blaha

    yes, the future Kingdom of England and Wales has no need for nukes, give them up now!

  83. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    Its a very strange question, Why do you only ask if Great Britain and France should get rid of them ?, you do know Brussels has no say on the subject so why not ask if North Korea or Pakistan should get rid of them.

  84. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    Le armi nucleari dovrebbero essere bandite e vietate per TUTTI . Dovrebbe essere preso come esempio nel mondo il principio della mia Costituzione. La mia Costituzione all’art. 11 dice ”
    L’Italia RIPUDIA la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli e come mezzo di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali;consente, in condizioni di parità con gli altri Stati, alle LIMITAZIONI di sovranità necessarie ad un ordinamento che assicuri la pace e la giustizia fra le Nazioni; promuove e favorisce le organizzazioni internazionali rivolte a tale scopo.”

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      il principio di questo articolo è talmente importante ( ogni parola ha il suo valore ) che non è possibile mettere una parola che somiglia , perderebbe il valore, il senso, il concetto.. Chi ha la capacità di tradurre deve capire prima il concetto , poi tradurlo per dargli il senso esatto di come è.

  85. avatar
    Θεοδοσης Αναγνωστοπουλος

    The weapons industry is a technology innovation system. At the same time strong defense is a deterent and peace keeping tool. Just check Cyprus vs Turkey, Turkey vs Greece, China vs all nations in South Sino sea or Russia vs Ukraine.

  86. avatar
    Georg Blaha

    European funding makes innovation possible. There is no need at all for weapon industry to have a stake in that. Nuclear weapons do not appear to be the answer to threats such as terrorism or cyber-attacks. The Cold War is over, we should have learned the lesson.

    • avatar
      Georg Blaha

      Giannis Dimitrakis no. At least where I have to deal with funding, military development is strictly out of bounds.

  87. avatar
    Alfredo Freskito

    Yeah right, give them away to the Saudis, for instance. Like the thing you like to do normally, nothing unusual.

  88. avatar
    Hidalgo Yann

    No they should not give up their weapons if they don’t use it against the consent of anyone anyway but it’s important to defend in case of big asteroids for example

  89. avatar
    Steven Matthew

    No, they are sacred and superior! It’s the amazing culture they want to export. Preaching other countries and killing their leaders and civilians.

  90. avatar
    EuropeCountry

    France should keep them

  91. avatar
    Vassilis Pavlides

    No, as nuclear weapons destroy or to be more specific, disappear life on Earth. It’s time governments gave up such programmes.

  92. avatar
    Omer Bekcioglu

    no, in case of emergancy we can use em for interstellar travel but reducing their number we must

  93. avatar
    Max Berre

    no. this is a dumb question in a world where the DPRK is test-firing missiles.

  94. avatar
    Waldek

    Nuclear weapons are main reason why there was no third world war. The biggest advantage of this kind of weapon is its fear… No one want to wage such risky war when there is possibility of mass destruction on both sides. Old latin saying is true… if you want peace, prepare for war.

  95. avatar
    Luigi Monteferrante

    I’d have said yes before Trump, trusting the so-called American umbrella; now, I think EU should have its own – EU, and not just France and, ugh, the once-great-Britain.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      By making a coup d’état and allowing nationalists to rule?

  96. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    With the EU dictatorship gaining its army Great Britain will increase it nuclear capacity not give it up, we now have more targets :)

  97. avatar
    JD Blaha

    Why does the future Kingdom of only England and Wales need nukes? Seriously, WHY??

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      As long as it will stay permanent member of the council UNO’s! Like USA, France, china and Russia!

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Shut up, don’t speak to much from the elected people!

  98. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    un premio nobel per la pace con poco senso . Vanno tolte tutte le armi di distruzione di massa non solo quelle nucleari . I popoli devono usare il dialogo e il rispetto .

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      il premio nobel per la pace andrebbe assegnato alla Costituzione italiana 1948 allora sarebbe un premio che manda un messaggio di VERA PACE

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Tu as raison, mais c’est dans la nature humaine de se détruire pour trouver sa place! C’est triste…

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      sbagliare è umano .La natura umana impara dagli errori non si può fare sempre gli stessi errori . Le armi di distruzione sono sempre sbagliate in ogni caso , tutti devono toglierle e dialogare e rispettarsi

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      En théorie… Mais on apprend jamais de ses erreurs, l’histoire ne se répète pas, mais bégaie seulement! ;)

  99. avatar
    Bart Van Damme

    A nobel prize for a useless campaign. We would be better off without nuclear weapons but that will never ever happen (unless they find something “better” to obliterate an enemy)

  100. avatar
    Lonzo Bildelberg

    and then be invaded by russia with no hope of fighting back because if we do they nuke us? what a brilliant plan

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Invaded by Russia??? We’re in the empire of Uncle Sam, impossible, did you watch too much hollywoodians movies?

  101. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    France gets rid of its nukes, Russia will roll in to Poland Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Romania the next morning. British nnukes are USA nukes, where the USA has to give the codes before launch, otherwise they make good oranments. UK is irrelevent.

    • avatar
      Andrea Brown

      Michael Hales Why what? Please form a coherent question, which I can then answer instead of a vague general question which could be about anything.

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      france is not the reason why russia is not attacking the slavic countries. France was already sad that it couldnt finish big economic deals during the trade blockade and germany is cooperating with russia on a pipeline project. There arent any blocks anymore. The deterrence argumentation doesnt work, it never really did. We could clearly see the russian tactics in georgia and ukraine. were the hell was the moment you could have threatened with atomic bombs? and why nobody did?

    • avatar
      Andrea Brown

      Uli Czeranka The lack of military divisions invading is the reasoin their was no threats. Low level conflict can not be responded to with thermonuclear threats.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Wake up, we’re in an economical war, maybe less casualties, but so much poverty and taxes!

    • avatar
      Andrea Brown

      Rémi Martin An economic war where our own are attacking us, instead of standing by us.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Simply because we share nothing all the 27…

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      Great. So when u know the facts, andrea, why state that we need to have more nuclear bombs?

  102. avatar
    Ed Hill

    How else will we pay for the new aircraft to go on the new aircraft carriers

  103. avatar
    Ether Traveler

    First, how did we, “intelligent humans” ever came to have them in the first place?

    A warning to let behind for next civilisation, perhaps?
    Anyway:
    Now, being hier:
    What’s the point?
    If we die by being exposed because of having them or die by the detonation of those using them( USA & Russia)?

    I rather die by not having them.
    A more honest, moral & greaceful way to die, thank you very much!

  104. avatar
    Ether Traveler

    First, how did we, “intelligent humans” ever came to have them in the first place?

    A warning to let behind for next civilisation, perhaps?
    Anyway:
    Now, being hier:
    What’s the point?
    If we die by being exposed because of having them or die by the detonation of those using them( USA & Russia)?

    I rather die by not having them.
    A more honest, moral & greaceful way to die, thank you very much!

  105. avatar
    Ether Traveler

    First, how did we, “intelligent humans” ever came to have them in the first place?

    A warning to let behind for next civilisation, perhaps?
    Anyway:
    Now, being hier:
    What’s the point?
    If we die by being exposed because of having them or die by the detonation of those using them( USA & Russia)?

    I rather die by not having them.
    A more honest, moral & greaceful way to die, thank you very much!

  106. avatar
    Ether Traveler

    First, how did we, “intelligent humans” ever came to have them in the first place?

    A warning to let behind for next civilisation, perhaps?
    Anyway:
    Now, being hier:
    What’s the point?
    If we die by being exposed because of having them or die by the detonation of those using them( USA & Russia)?

    I rather die by not having them.
    A more honest, moral & greaceful way to die, thank you very much!

  107. avatar
    Ether Traveler

    First, how did we, “intelligent humans” ever came to have them in the first place?

    A warning to let behind for next civilisation, perhaps?
    Anyway:
    Now, being hier:
    What’s the point?
    If we die by being exposed because of having them or die by the detonation of those using them( USA & Russia)?

    I rather die by not having them.
    A more honest, moral & greaceful way to die, thank you very much!

  108. avatar
    Ether Traveler

    First, how did we, “intelligent humans” ever came to have them in the first place?

    A warning to let behind for next civilisation, perhaps?
    Anyway:
    Now, being hier:
    What’s the point?
    If we die by being exposed because of having them or die by the detonation of those using them( USA & Russia)?

    I rather die by not having them.
    A more honest, moral & greaceful way to die, thank you very much!

  109. avatar
    Man Von

    No. We can not leave Europe being more helpless than it is nowdays in front of Russia, China and so on. We are unfortunately, weak enough in terms of diplomacy and strike forces.

  110. avatar
    Alves Henriques

    isrealhell refuse to sign the atomic convention like north korea and does not suffer sanctions or embargo like north korea. the nobel peace prizes are a joke and hipocrizie.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      François Asselineau: «Le Nobel de la Paix est un moyen pour Washington de faire prévaloir ses intérêts géopolitiques»

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      A strange thing to say given Germany now again ‘occupies’ most of western Europe, you really have learnt nothing from your history have you.

    • avatar
      Gerard Francois

      France withdrew its occupation force in Germany after reunification.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Of course!!! What are you talking about Alves? You forget Uncle Sam who’s there since over 72 years! Why don’t you speak from him??? US GO HOME!!!

    • avatar
      Barbara Szela Lesniak

      Alves Henriques – Really? There still live those who remember and suffered from German occupation, Hitler and the German Nazis ….

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Ivan Burrows russia ended occupation in 1989, russia shuld have made a deal with USA for both of them end occupation. nobody in europe want the usa army here.

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Gerard Francois uk, france, usa keep their army in germany. ilegal occupation talking about “freedom” and “democracy” yeah right.

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Rémi Martin yes the USA army also shuld end occupation of europe and go back to USA.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Why are you dare criticizing France and UK?

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Rémi Martin because occupation against germany ,also made by usa army. the elections in germany are ilegal because canot have “free” election when their is a foregner army riggering the election inside germany. do u understand.

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      Sorry, we germans dont need some weird nor german nazi to tell us we are not free. Thank u

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Alves Henriques No USA army means you will have the Russian army, great idea.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Typical propaganda from Hollywood!

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Ivan Burrows a european army in europe <3 love it

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      USA army is not welcome in europe Never.

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      from Portugal to Russia we all Europe. or “nazis” as the haters call us

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      we in europe want to speak germans or russian sure. not arab or pesmerg. go back to arabie saudit leave europe for europeans.

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      russia cristians VS USA heretic islamics , its not dificult to choose.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      And speaking this globish language! ;) US GO HOME, there’re more english words on walls today, than during the german occupation in the 40’s!

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Rémi Martin serais mieux si on parlerais tous allemand ou russe, aux lieux de aprendre arab a l´école.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Moi, le français me va très bien, j’aime pas être dominé!

    • avatar
      Makis McMak

      Κωνσταντίνος Αγαΐτσης

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Rémi Martin la france aux français. point final.

    • avatar
      Alves Henriques

      Κωνσταντίνος Αγαΐτσης deport

  111. avatar
    George Yiannourides

    Brexit Britain may put her military advantage over Europe and threaten to erase Frankfurt and Paris with her nuclear weapons .
    Unless , she is allowed to leave the EU but keep the single market without freedom of movement .

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      If the world would be so ruled… 😂😂😂

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      On you, it’ll be enough! Joke…

  112. avatar
    João Machado

    Should North Korea? What about India? Is there a rank for the good and bad countries? And who’s ranking them? Food for thought…

    • avatar
      Bart Plat

      Nothing to see here folks, hes on crack

    • avatar
      Larma Vince

      Of course its G.O.D doing the ranks and Donald DUMP knows what is ‘Guud’ or not…so we’re shaved..euh I mean saved.

    • avatar
      João Machado

      Larma Vince 🤣😂😂 saved indeed

  113. avatar
    Makis McMak

    Cut the crap Debating Europe!! We had this discussion again some time ago and the verdict was pretty clear.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      The same questions ‘re always coming, didn’t you notice that?

  114. avatar
    Joel Salgueiro

    People can give their opinion is this type of “Poll” so to say but they will never give because a lot of politicians are “comodists” and dont to be under pressure with the all the fanatics out there so…..

  115. avatar
    Hr Tom Mosen

    nahh we should get some more – so the world destruction in the aftermath is total.

  116. avatar
    Barbara Szela Lesniak

    So naive, so silly … Wasn”t it Lenin who said ‘”The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.’? Should I say Europe is dead already? And that’s thanks to sick ideas supported by such media like Debating Europe…. The question is – who wants Europe and its old Roman culture to die?

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      😂😂😂😂 Why not Uncle Sam, he was the first one to use it on a people!

  117. avatar
    Jorge Freitas

    No, they shouldn’t. Nuclear weapons are the best guarantee of peace, no matter what some silly, naive or ill-intentioned activists might say.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      It was a condition to income on common market, without it, it would be embargo like NK!

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      wtf are you talking about? if I translate in French, “c’était une condition pour revenu sur marché commun, sans ça ça aurait été l’embargo comme la corée du nord”. Je suppose que tu voulais dire “c’était une condition pour entrer sur le marché commun”. Tu parles pas de la GB ou de la France je pense puisqu’elles ont toutes les deux eu accès au marché commun sans abandonner l’arme nucléaire. Tu ne parles pas non plus de l’Ukraine j’imagine puisqu’elle n’a jamais eu accès à un marché commun. Quand à la Corée du Nord je ne demande même pas ce qu’elle vient faire là dedans.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Je parlais du marché commun généré par l’OMC(Organisation mondiale du commerce), pas de l’ex-CEE, et disposer de produits fabriqués d’ailleurs que de son pays. L’Ukraine n’importe rien? Tout est dit!

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      quand on utilise l’expression “le marché commun” en générale on fait référence à Schengen ou à l’UE. Les pays membres de l’OMC ont ouvert leurs marchés les uns aux autres avec des degrés de protectionnisme très divers mais on ne peut pas vraiment parler de marché commun parce que ces pays se sont mis d’accord sur un minimum de choses mais ont toujours des lois et des systèmes douaniers extrêmement différents. Que les pays en question aient l’arme nucléaire ou pas, d’ailleurs.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Non, officiellement, seuls les 5 pays membres permanents du conseil de l’ONU ont le droit de la posséder! Pour le reste, l’OMC, désolé, je ne savais pas comment l’exprimer en américan! Je parle juste de droit international, une bonne vidéo circule comment les autres pays l’ont acquise!

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      oui on appelle ça le conseil de sécurité et la France l’Angleterre et l’URSS dont l’Ukraine faisait partie intégrante (pays fondateur si on peut dire) y siègent depuis le départ. Désolé mais je ne vois toujours pas où vous vouliez en venir.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Si l’Ukraine avait gardé ses armes nucléaires, elle aurait simplement été sous un embargo international, la cession des armes nucléaires à la Russie, qui en avait seule les capacités de les avoir, entretien, recyclage, a été une condition pour pouvoir importer des produits manufacturés d’ailleurs!

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      c’est idiot, ni l’Inde ni le Pakistan ne sont sous embargo international. et il y a d’autres exemples il me semble. Si l’Ukraine avait gardé ses armes, qu’elle a rendu en échange de la reconnaissance de ses frontières et de sa souveraineté par la russie, souveraineté que la France et la GB se sont également engagées à garantir dans le mémorandum de Budapest en 1995, si l’Ukraine avait gardé ses armes, elle aurait pu se défendre quand la russie l’a envahi. La russie n’a pas la capacité d’entretenir des armes nucléaires, vous racontez n’importe quoi, ils n’ont pas d’armée de l’air digne de ce nom ni de marine parce qu’ils n’ont jamais été capable de maintenir des porte avion à flot tout au long de leur histoire, ils ont délibérément fait sauter Tchernobyl alors comment voulez vous qu’ils aient la capacité de maintenir en état des armes nucléaires? vous divaguez complètement, là. D’autant plus qu’ils n’ont recyclé aucune des ogives nucléaires, ils les gardent pour menacer la paix mondiale et on a été assez bêtes pour les leur rendre. Je vois qu’on l’est toujours autant.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Je vais te laisser dans ton délire hollywwodien, bonne nuit!

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      c’est ça, je sais pas lequel des deux délire le plus, moi au moins je sais ce que je dis, mais si ça te plaît de t’imaginer que ce que je dis est faux libre à toi, c’est plus confortable

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      y a-t-il quelque chose dans cette vidéo qui réfute ce que j’ai avancé? après l’avoir visionnée il me semble bien que non

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      L’Ukraine a décidé de les abandonner, point final. Comme le Belarus!

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      vous n’avez pas lu ce que j’ai écrit sur le mémorandum de Budapest. L’Ukraine a échangé ses armes nucléaires contre la reconnaissance de la part de la Russie de sa souveraineté, de son intégrité territoriale et de ses frontières. La France et la GB qui ont aussi signé ce mémorandum se sont portées garantes du respect par la russie des frontières de l’Ukraine. En 2014, bien qu’elle le nie encore (mais pas totalement) la russie a envahi l’Ukraine en violation flagrante de ce traité. Ce n’est pas si simple que vous voulez bien le faire croire et dans la situation actuelle où la russie ne reconnaît plus l’intégrité des frontières de l’Ukraine le mémorandum de Budapest est caduc, ce qui donne donc le droit à l’Ukraine de se réarmer et de récupérer ses armes atomiques. Si l’effondrement de l’URSS avait mis un point final à la guerre froide et à la menace nucléaire tout serait simple et on vivrait dans un monde en paix. Mais ce n’est pas du tout le cas comme chacun peut le constater, parce qu’au lieu d’aider à la non prolifération la chute de l’URSS a mené à une vraie dissémination nucléaire un peu partout dans le monde.

    • avatar
      Thibaud Ochem

      pls stick to the subject, even if you feel threatened personally by the Bundeswehr. Even if you feel personally threatened by the Greek army.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Don’t worry, with a decline of population rate and the migrants, there won’t be any Germans in a few genrations! You don’t go to war with an old people…

  118. avatar
    John Mason

    This will never happen in my view. Or if they did someone would develop a worse weapon. This homo Sapiens we’re talking about.

    • avatar
      Jérôme Quilliet

      France and UK give up thei weapon if USA, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and Iran give up their weapon

  119. avatar
    Jérôme Quilliet

    No because they have to protect their interest without the protection of USA or if all the other nuclear country give up. And if your are a permanent state in the security council yoiu need to have it to be equal than the three other

  120. avatar
    Gaotu Davids

    No, I think no matter how well intentioned the sentiment, the reality is than in this world there will always be rouge nations that seek to procure the most devastating weapons in existence for nefarious purposes. With this in mind, even though as civilized nations we might never use these weapons, having them & others knowing we have them is most likely enough of a deterrent to prevent these rougue nations from doing anything provocative & frankly stupid.

  121. avatar
    Carl Sebastian Steenekamp

    No. And Germany should also start using nuclear weapons for defense and so should many other European countries due to the instability that occurs currently in the world.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Before Germany gets nucle”ar weapons, they should ask Uncle Sam to go home!

  122. avatar
    Johnny Sintra

    No way! German will be always a big danger for Europe – oh yeah, the neonazism is there and stronger than ever – and new other dangers are raising up nowadays. Henceforward, Britain and France must not give up their nuclear weapons. Who thinks about such a silly thing? Is it a message from Kim Jong Un?

  123. avatar
    Tony Papard

    UK and France and all other nuclear-armed countries should sign and ratify the UN resolution to ban nuclear weapons. They are illegal weapons of mass destruction targeting innocent civilians and affecting even future generations. They are militarily useless, costly and they are not even a credible deterrent as witnessed by events such as USA having to pull out of Vietnam defeated, USSR having to pull out of Afghanistan when the Socialist regime collapsed, the failure to deter Argentina from claiming the Malvinas, 9/11, etc., etc.. UK’s plan to replace Trident also contravenes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Britain signed, and commits us to getting rid of our nuclear weapons not replacing them.

    • avatar
      Jonny

      no offence…. but are you insane? Nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against huge conventional wars, if we had them before world war one and two, those wars may not have even happened. Also, how did you reach the conclusion that they are illegal, is there some kind of worldwide law? By the way, evidently Kim Jong Un doesn’t care about nuclear weapons being “illegal”

  124. avatar
    Jonny

    If anything, giving up Britain and France’s nuclear weapons would increase the threat from Russia, China etc as there is no local deterrent. If such a hostile situation took place and Russia for whatever reason didn’t launch it’s nukes then a huge conventional war would take place using mainland Europe as a battleground. That would be the third major war in Europe in a comparatively short space of time. The reason every country has nukes is so huge conventional wars don’t take place. I guarantee you if France and the U.K gave up their nukes, Russia wouldn’t “not target” Europe, if anything, it would prioritise Europe. One thing i would say though is that America and Russia have way too many nukes, so many that they could each wipe out the entire world on their own a few times over. This kind of power is completely unnecessary, in case you wondered, you only “need” to wipe out the world once. Therefore countries with an excessively large nuclear stockpile should cut down as they could do so without strategic loss. However, with you know who in charge of the USA and you know who in charge of Russia, it’s more likely that they will come together and attack Europe as allies. (all the more reason we need nukes) :)
    have a nice life!

  125. avatar
    Katerina Mpakirtzi

    Νο. Turkey and Russia unfortunately build news in Mediterranean. A new othomans empire building against ALL westerners. Some Muslims countries have very bad leaders

  126. avatar
    Blagovest Blagoev

    Those who want peace should be prepared for a war. So if we want our peace to continue living on, we need to keep our arms ready (and hopefully never used).

  127. avatar
    Adnan Soysal

    they would never giveup.
    they would never live at the mercy of corrupt terror states like china, russia. they consider themselves having great legacy of major world players.

  128. avatar
    Matej Mlinarič

    No that is a weapon for last resort. Just in case someone is stupid enough to try to destroy any of our cities. Sure there is always a risk that such weapons could destroy humanity, if everybody decided to use them. However since bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima world got more diplomatic instead of just trying to resolve our differences with conventional wars. So if world gave up their nuclear capabilities would likely just start another arms race.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      “that is a weapon for last resort”, sorry, but you won’t deceide for us when we’ll have to use it…

    • avatar
      Matej Mlinarič

      I have no more interest to pollute environment with radiation than you do. This is only, if every other weapon wouldn’t be able to stop invading army. So that only choice would be to use nuke or die. It is not necessarily an army. Could be a virus that would threaten whole existence of humanity and would have to sacrifice some so that rest could survive. That is what goes for last resort. I sure hope that nobody has to use them ever but reality is quite different. If there would be such scenario that all other measures for containment failed then it would be up to military to make such decision. There is also a possibility of asteroid that could threaten our existence. Such weapons are not easy to make so its best to be ready for anything just in case it might ever be needed. So be ready for worst and hope for the best and act appropriate to the situation.

  129. avatar
    Pawel Huszcza

    Absolutely no. It is not something you can undo, once it’s done, it’s done, there is no coming back.

  130. avatar
    Baldovin Antonio

    And leave Europe without defence in case of nuclear attack?Fuck NO!Europe should be the greatest nuclear superpower in the word,not to beg mercy from US(NATO) or Russia!

  131. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    Nuclear weapons are the reason we havent had WW3 for a record period of time. And you want europe to give them up?

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Breogán Costa European lunatics with a flag and a plan to unite Europe have tried it before and there is no reason to assume you will not do it again, the outcome would be the same however. Please try and form some kind of counter argument as just using insults make you like uneducated.

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      In the name of what? A world governement?

    • avatar
      Breogán Costa

      I’m not sure that you understood my comment… I just ask why some governments should give their weapons and others have the right to keep them…

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Keep cool, you’re sucking Uncle Sam for that!

    • avatar
      Tim Nick Knight

      Rémi Martin no thanks I don’t trust fat perv clowns, now with the UK leaving, we can build our own military and show America the door

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Tim Nick Knight No doubt to be called the Wehrmacht, how does it feel to be owned by the Germans again ?

    • avatar
      Tim Nick Knight

      Ivan Burrows, projecting as a dumpy want a be American state

    • avatar
      Tim Nick Knight

      Be good, Trump might throw you a bone

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Europeans have learnt nothing from their history and are destined to repeat it…

    • avatar
      Paolo Gazzola

      Meaning one day we’re gonna launch one?
      Weren’t we against war?

    • avatar
      Christine Harris

      No. Deterrence. With North Korea in the neighbourhood don’t want to take any chances

    • avatar
      Rémi Martin

      Did you watch to much hollywoodians movies?

  132. avatar
    Paolo Gazzola

    Nuclear weapons are useless, in a society where blockades can completely crush a country in a matter of days.
    What we need is a anti-bomb shield, something that would avoid Europe becoming a nuclear wasteland lol

    • avatar
      Thomas Marianini

      Heh, ask China how much effective blockades are against superpower-type countries. Deterrence, even if with small numbers are what kept cold war becoming hot and are what is keeping North Koreans and such from escalating.

    • avatar
      Paolo Gazzola

      Chinese are 1/3 of the world population 😂
      And meaning to use a-bombs in the future is a crime against humanity

  133. avatar
    Daniel Pislaru

    No. They are the waranty nobody will dare to attack Europe. We cannot always relay on USA.

    • avatar
      Jokera Jokerov

      The Brits do not give a sh…. well, a shilling about Europe. :P

  134. avatar
    Dan Olteanu

    Yeah, let’s give all our weapons away so muslims can conquer us even easier…

  135. avatar
    Nicholas Livanos

    Not only keep em but use em too. Nuke the whole world and wipe the human race out. It totally deserves it. It’ll be good for the planet in the long run. The surviving roaches will make a better use of natural resources. Plus they wont have an opinion about things they know nothing about and wont have to comment on everything.

  136. avatar
    George

    Yes.
    They are (tactically and strategically) useless and costly.

    • avatar
      Ivan

      Good luck keeping Russia out without Nukes.

    • avatar
      George

      Ivan you mean the Russian business and cheap gas? 🤔
      Having nukes by itself means nothing without capability of successful deployment.
      Besides the aggression and provocations come from NATO, not Russia, all this why Germany and most EU-NATO countries have lost their military, and are currently occupied by US forces.

    • avatar
      Ivan

      George Fascinating insight but still the question remains, who will stop Russia occupying first Eastern Europe and then the rest of the EU if not the Americans, NATO or Nukes ?

    • avatar
      George

      Ivan to “stop” someone, there needs to be at least an intention of making a move.
      If there were such, those nukes would have not stopped anything.
      So far Russia’s actions has been to protect their population from the nazis in Ukraine to the open military actions and shelling of civilians in Georgia. Oh… and we have to thank them for stopping ISIS too.
      The only intentions towards “Eastern Europe” for military subjugation comes from NATO, and their intention is public, so if you are worried about someone, be worried about NATO and their interest in starting a conflict with Russia on EU soil.
      https://www.reuters.com/…/us-pushes-nato-to-ready-more…
      Manage

  137. avatar
    Patrick

    The Whole World needs to be Nuclear Weapons Free.

    • avatar
      Ivan

      What protects you ?

  138. avatar
    Hans

    Russia and America would never do that.

    • avatar
      Stephen

      No it isnt at all.

  139. avatar
    Bobbi

    I think tactical is important to be further developed

  140. avatar
    Denis

    as long as russia and china have them, no way

  141. avatar
    Ivan

    With the enemy that is the EU so close ?, not a chance lol

  142. avatar
    Aris

    YES, If the rest nuclear powers decide to give up their nuclear weapons too.
    It is true that nuclear weaponry prevents others from attacking you.

  143. avatar
    Virsta

    I think they should keep them

  144. avatar
    Stephen

    Definately NOT the are the biggest deterent we can have and a threat to those who need to be put incheck.

  145. avatar
    Jack

    I firmly believe a world free of all nuclear weapons is achievable, unfortunately, only in the long term.
    We are not yet ready for that world and without some Europeans nuclear bombs, especially now that trump’s US is basically going kamikaze against itself, Europe would be just easily blackmailed and threatened.
    Same goes for armyes: would be the best outcome after a true peaceful and wise world not having armies any more…but it’s not achievable in this millennium.

  146. avatar
    Matt

    Only under the condition of denuclearization of the rest of the world. Otherwise it just doesn’t make sense and would put whole European continent in a possible danger.

  147. avatar
    Patrick

    Both Britain & France should both start paying up for the genetical defects and environmental damage they have both caused though.

  148. avatar
    Alex

    MAD keeps proving itself as a functioning strategy, so no, absolutely not.

  149. avatar
    Max

    No. The main strategic alternatives are:
    1: Free-ride the NATO alliance even harder.
    2: Kow-tow to Russia. And China.

    Neither are acceptable.

  150. avatar
    Colin Hounslow

    No, No, No,
    We might consider a different type of weapon and delivery system but they have kept this country safe since the second world war.

  151. avatar
    jimmy

    no . but with Germany and its WAR record they should be no where near the nuke button more so when they start throwing their weight about in the new super power eu army

  152. avatar
    jthk

    No. Britain and France should not give up their nuclear weapon. If North Korea has no nuclear weapon, it would not be existing as an independent state in the face of US aggression. Angela Merkel has correctly readjust her political perspective when the US hegemonic decline is on the way and it is now governed by a herd of hawkish people led by a crazy old man who is ignorant of global politics and who is now ruling the US as his profit making disregarding all business and contract ethics.

  153. avatar
    jthk

    When an American president, Mr Trump is boasting the American nuclear button is bigger than that of Kim Jong Un, and the US has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal. It is definitely not the moment for Britain and France to giving up nuclear weapon.

  154. avatar
    Josh

    The nuclear weapons would cause destruction and the population of the world would be going down due to weapons being used as a threat or life sentence

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.