Between 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).
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?
UK 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?
Having 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?
Finally, how would Varinder Bola respond? Does he think nuclear weapons actually make us safer?
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!
677 comments Post a commentcomment
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.
Laughable
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.
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
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.
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
If everybody else does… The only country that should be prohibited to posses Nuc, as the only one that use it is US!
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).
Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy operate on completely different principles.
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.
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)
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…
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
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
É la realizzazione di un vecchio proverbio tedesco “Chi non porta le proprie armi, porterà quelle degli altri”.
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 ?
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 ?
Be careful of Israel I will attack Europe like Syria
bullshits.
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.
Our deterrent strenght isn’t for EU!
Last time I checked France was in NATO and was an ally of most of the other EU members that are also in NATO.
And? Don’t we pay enough for others?
Point is in war we will be allies and defend eachother. What’s so hard to get?
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.
Wether we need NATO or not is another question. The fact is our countries have signed this pact under international law.
I’m for leaving it…
As it allows!
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
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!
Never.
Never
No Britain needs to keep ours and also expand our military 3 fold if not more.
…why
Because we need to be able to defend ourselves better in my view,besides why not who else will do it? James Kennedy.
James Kennedy oh yes and to invade Ireland AGAIN.. ……………joke by the way.
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.
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.
David Coughlan they are fine at Faslane fella ,All the locals want them to stay many jobs depend on it.
@ 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
Elle Wilky UK have their own nuke arsenal.
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
Steve Pock Defend against what?
Our new /old enemies James Kennedy.
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…
Why Erdogan? Quelle est la menace venant d’Erdogan? Il serait temps d’arrêter la turcophobie et la démonisation du leader turc.
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…
We should but we somehow must forget how to create new ones…
All Europe and middle east
The UK might need to nuke Germany during the Brexit negotiations!
Nuclear weapons in Europe !!!!!!!!!Who is the enemy ?
Radical Islam
Russia
Marcin Osiekowicz They only (!) want to have back this what was Russian. Warsaw after Poland partition was Russian longer than not….
Marcin, take care little polnish, you’re in the middle!
Stanislaw Gadomski russia over years had grabbed lots of what isnt theirs.
The enemy is US in fact.
The enemy is still Russia.
Certainly not for France!
You have a russian candidate for president – did you just fall from the moon or something ?
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 ;)
Deterrent power is to keep France in peace, nothing else!
That’s what your grand dad though – few months later he was licking the invading army’s boots. Divided Europe is failed Europe.
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.
If you were independent 70 years ago – you would be speaking German now as your 1st language ;)
We’re speaking american, is it better?
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.
No, keep them.
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.
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?
English nuclear bombs codes are controlled by Uk govt, so they’re basically english
you really think a piece of papers such as a treaty done by bureaucrats will protect us from anything…
Yep, just ask Neville Chamberlain about that one…
What a stupid question! To whom give up? To Putin? :)
Did Britain has to subscribe to the European court of human right after exit?
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?
Sure they should. Just after Russia, China, Iran and North Korea ;)
Don’t forget Israel and USA
Yes : abandon those MURDER WEAPONS !
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
NO, UE NEEDS MORE NUKLEAR WEAPONS TO PREVENT NUCLEAR MENACE FROM OTHER COUNTRYES
Mattia Mingazzini
why does the future Kingdom of England and Wales need nukes?
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.
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…
something like 96% of the people voted to stay wioth Russia with a 83% turn out………. why should they not be with Russia?
Andrew Jones Because you live far away from the scene: we here are much closer to real events and know the whole different story…
yeah if they stupid
NO WAY….they have to exist as deterrents…hopefully never to be used.
NO!
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?
It isn’t certainly to be used for defend others countries, just for us, France!
No. Why?
Not in this world as it is today, would be insane.
not while china russia and the US hold giant arsenals of nuclear warheads
France should keep them and maybe Germany should consider having them as well.
I would rather Poland. Germany are too ambitious.
Germany should never be allowed any
Germoney who’s dominate Europe, it isn’t enough?
Nope…. Nuclear are the only peace safety.
No. End of debate.
I think not.If Europe would became a real Federation, Europa must have a EU Army and Nuclear Military power..
It’s for France, not for EU, EU is peace they said!
Peace but strong armed..Si vis pacem para bellum..:)
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!
:) ☺Good luck
Thanks, the 1500 years old country!
NO xD end of debate and 15 000 is not enaught thats myth
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.
“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?
No!! O.o
ALL countries (not only France and Britain) should give up their nuclear weapons if they have any.
Ukraine had done it in 90’s.
To have access to the world wide market…
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…
Aye, they should take them down to Oxfam in a bin liner.
Of course they should but only if the rest of the world does it as well.
Begin with Israël, ok?
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
Noooooo O.O
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.
Europe is peace, they said…
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…
Then, we prefer to leave your dream, we saw where this game of alliances brought us twice last century!
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGrTd8ukCa8
http://licey.net/free/2-srazheniya__izmenivshie_hod_istorii/12-srazheniya__izmenivshie_hod_istorii__1945_2004/stages/1288-48_cena_afganskoi_voiny.html
Stanislaw Gadomski -при чем здесь это….я знаю лучше вас правильные цифры 200
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
WHEN RUSSIA CHINA NORTH KOREA AND THE LIKES OF IRAN GIVE UP THEIR MISSILES IN OTHER WORDS “NO” !!!!!
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!
And then there would be nothing keeping them from having a large scale and super bloody conventional war.
Have you ever heard of fission reactors?
Dorian Jakov Štern-Vukotić No, because I’m a stupid ignorant!
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
Lets have multilateral disarmament as opposed to unilateral disarmament.
No. Also, Germany should get nukes
I don’t even trust Germany w/ an oven let alone nukes
Nuclear powered ovens are off the table then… ?
Nuclear powered ovens are definitely off the heat control isn’t reliable
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.
Yeah it’s Israel that prevents disarmament, not Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia, or guerrilla groups that try to obtain a dirty bomb.
Always the damn j00z
Haha you wish.
No. Never. Power is the first requirement of freedom.
No. Never. Power is the first requirement of freedom.
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.
Pmsfl LMFAO lol
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.
No, Non, Nein, Não
No
No
France, because this country will soon become Muslim.
No.
Yes!!! And do not forget to ask Russia to grant their sovereignty after giving up nukes :) Just like Ukraine did…
They gave up their sovereignity to the USA already.
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.
Wait another 5 Years…then directly in a museum..
Wait another 5 Years…then directly in a museum..
not so lomg there is another nation with nukes in the world
not so lomg there is another nation with nukes in the world
Who to?…why?….it doesn’t really matter anymore, Fukashima already happened…
Uhmmmmm…. Fukashima? What is the relevance?
Who to?…why?….it doesn’t really matter anymore, Fukashima already happened…
Uhmmmmm…. Fukashima? What is the relevance?
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.
You can thank the eu open boarders for that.
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.
Get shut and spend the money on Hospitals and Social Care.
Get shut and spend the money on Hospitals and Social Care.
Hugo Costa Moreira the eu army lol and who is going to supply the soldiers ?
If you want better security close the open boarders !!
Europe is peace they said…
Yea and yet look at the attacks that are going on !
Rémi Martin I like the map you have up :-)
Give me a little “like”! ;)
YES !!! all countries …
No never
Give them to the EU
Certainly never!
Of course! It’s what makes us independant from others countries in order to not live what happened us last century!
France might as well do, everybody knows they’d never use them.
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?
Not for long. Macron is the death of France. After brexit all of Europe will be swallowed by Germany.
Saddly, you’re right, but somes frenchies resist…
only if all other nuclear powers do the same, otherwise they just risk exposure
Well Britain can’t afford a rowing boat nevermind a nuclear submarine and the cost
We can well afford which is why we have the 5th most powerful military on the planet
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
Only when Israel gives up theirs. Now Europe needs protection against Israel
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!!
Nope
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
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?
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 !
Alain Parguez https://youtu.be/F91V8yzyS_s
Car tu crois que j’apprécie la politique étrangère de mon pays? Sérieusement…
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
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?
“If you want peace talk softly and carry a big stick “.
Or ‘Tread softly and carry a big gun’
….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. …
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
You were a submariner?! You mean youre Namor!? Holy shit! This has made my day xD
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
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
No, they shouldn’t. look at Ukraine’s decision
To have access to world wide economy, international rights, did you heard from it?
no way in the world ,who is the dumass proposing thisd
no. if you don’t have these it will cost 50 million lives to win something back. this deterrent saves that.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
Then. THEN.
Past.
Times have changed.
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.
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.
False logic.
Nuclear weapons haven’t prevented:
Vietnam. Korea. The Falklands. Afghanistan. Iraq (twice). To name but a few. Without venturing into Eastern Europe.
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?
Yes please
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.
Because you believe I’m not for leaving NATO for this reason?
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.
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
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
what sort of stupide asshole can have this kind of idées?
Yes
How is this even a debate topic? Of course not. Must be clickbait.
hum… and let russia flex their nuclear arm on us? don’t think so
Yes.
There is one modern country, that gave up nuclear weapons. It didnt end well for it later….
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
yes, of course, only the U$ should keep them, the Police of the world…
PS: being sarcastic
Now is one of the worst time’s to give them up. The world is slipping down the pan quickly.
NOPE!
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.
If you want peace be prepared for war
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.
“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
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.
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
Too much nuc …. everyone should give up.
There is literally no good argument for considering this
HAHAHHAHA
why do you need nuc ???? here is economy war … noone can see it ????
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.
North Korea has Nuclear weapons and that is only reason they are not attacked
Well also because their missiles can’t travel this far yet..
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
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
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.
EU is peace they said… So our deterrent power isn’t certainly for others countries, it’s for our independance!
Hell no!
not please! Germany still exists….
Yes, but this time, Germoney is the master without weapons, but is still occupied by US…
Nuclear weapons reductions should focus on the US and Russia. Everyone else’s arsenal is a joke compared to them.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Nukes have been the biggest reason for peace since their development. So the answer is no imho
two sides blades, what if it gets into the wrong hands ?
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.
Why would a future Kingdom of England and Wales need nukes?
self defense
From France? the EU? Iceland?
or the Russians that buy up London Real Estate? or the Chinese the invest in UK firms?
Times can change, history showed us….
Depends what you mean by nuclear weapons, is it purely fire force or motorised through nuclear energy ?
yes, the biggest ,,, FIRST !!
Eventually yes. Right now, no.
Not give up, but reduce worldwide.
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.
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!
Not, why?…Britain will soon be independent from the EU and must look after its own place in the world.
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
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!!!!!
I don’t think so. Weapons, including nuclear arms, are needed to protect us.
rofl… yeah, let’s give Putin a carte blanche to take over Europe… Idiots
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. ..
No one is nuking no one. It is called deterrence and it works. Google it.
Dismantle NATO!
Rémi Martin ROFL, you got the Russian flag all wrong. Also, a few million people from the Baltics will disagree with you.
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!
lol, shall we sing a song together?
EU is peace, so why are you afraid from our neighbor? Do you need to invent an enemy?
let’s learn from history: how exactly did Poland threaten nazi Germany? they were also “peace”
Nuclear weapons shouldn’t exist at all. ..
That is idiotic, especially with trump at thee helm in America, worsening relations within Nato. Of course they shouldn’t, its a deterrent.
Не
No no no
Well, Ukraine did give up her nukes.( just saying..)
Totally another case…
It is not!
Ukraine signed a treaty to give them back, France and UK are permanents members of ONU…
First America then others
ALL NATIONS OF PLANET EARTH. Yes.yes…
ALL NATIONS OF PLANET EARTH. Yes.yes…
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?!
The real question is should N. Korea and China do so. It will not happen!!! So no no no!!!!!!
YES 100%….
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
Why, so others can conquer them even more than they already have?
No!!!!
NEVER!
Absolutely NOT , only idiots would want to give up our biggest deterrent
If the European country will be governed muslims, than the relocation of the weapon of mass destruction should be considered.
Nice future this EU…
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 !
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
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.
yes they should. Everyone should get rid of it
expelle the USA zog army out of europe. end bruxells dictatorship.
Dismantle NATO!
Why?
yes lets do that and be defenceless!
No, why?
yes every state should do it!!!!!!!!
Its better with nuclear weapons, we can have peace. No big conflicts after WWII.
This would be a great topic for a live panel discussion
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.
Not at all – not in this world!
No not now
Bist du wirklich?
No. There is no reason for it. Why is this been even debated?
No it will destabilise the region and the balance of power will be ended .
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/religion/333158-never-again-the-holocaust-can-happen-again-and-its-up-to-us-to
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…..
No, but if every country give up theires
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! :(
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…
Gabriel Pascu e problema lor Să facă agricultură, au o țară imensă.
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!
It’s expensive and honestly I can’t see it ever being used !
the whole point is that they never get used.
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.
and then stand powerless when other threaten you with theirs
no
Only when the others do the same.
No!!!!!
Go ahead, then no leverage will be left deterring Putin from a full-blown invasion of Europe.
I totally agree. We have to defend against Russia and USA even if it is oy based on dissuasion.
Paranoid detected…By the way, Russia has some 7 or 8 times more nukes than France and the UK combined…
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…
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.
All nuclear weapons and plants must be abolished in order to save Earth
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
Nuclear use is sure death of Earth.436 nuclear plants and tens of thousands of nukes is madness.Nothing else.
Yes, definitely.
Put them in common in favour of an EU army.
Not with my taxes there will be one. The EU is not a state.
You do know we are leaving the pointless EU don’t you ?
None of EU’s business. The EU is not a state. Stop meddling!
Who said that is the EU´s business?
This bloody propaganda page never ask anything without second intentions…
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.
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
So should USA, Iran, Russia and others.
Iran? And why not Iraq too? wtf
Iraq???
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.
Nothing to do with you.
UK will keep them after all some EU countries could become our enemies again.
Germany doesn’t need it because France and Britain have it.
Well, it´s completely up to you to decide how to waste your money.
France and the UK needs nukes because…Germany!
And they will deter Russians with what? Kind word?
Europe should have same nuclear power like Russia or USA
And than what? Praying for some new Trumpidiot in charge?
The Whole World should not only France or Britain
No, please.
Idealism and optimism wont save them
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?
Never going to happen,.
Yes BUT only when Russia, Arab countries or totalitarisms give up their nuclear weapons.
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.
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
No, arms keep peace, weakness invites aggression. But we should carefully keep the world’s balance of power!
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.
First rights prices after deal
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…
Absolutely not.
Yeah
Noooo.We need to have a European Army and a European nuclear power..
That’s why the UK must keep ours
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.
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.
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…
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..:)
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…
Never, do you want to depend from the US forever?
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? :)
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!
No, and be completely under the protection of the USA. Hell no
No fucking way
YES!
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.
So its perfectly normal according to your thought for North Korea to have “deterrents”, right?
Giannis Dimitrakis nk is not a major industrial country.
as Ucraine?
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.
Lol
Kiril Cydonia a real joker indeed :D
NO !
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.
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.
Are you kidding me? EU is a curse upon Europe
yes, the future Kingdom of England and Wales has no need for nukes, give them up now!
The answer is No
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.
yes!!!
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.”
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.
Of course no!
Haha. No. Never.
this is the 4th time in 2 montbs I see this post. stop spo sorin it, please Debating Europe
Nope.
No…why should them if other countries are creating new weapons of destruccion?.
Weapons for a war that no one can win.
Yes, the second after everyone else.
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.
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.
Did you just say Europe finances nuclear weapons?
Giannis Dimitrakis no. At least where I have to deal with funding, military development is strictly out of bounds.
Yeah right, give them away to the Saudis, for instance. Like the thing you like to do normally, nothing unusual.
No with Pakistan and iran with nuclear weapons. No way
Every one should.
Yes,we are on the hands of the Chinese,the world;s super nuclear power.
Anyway whatever anytools should not be used against the consent of anyone else
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
Give ’em to Iran. ;)
Yes. No country should have nuclear weapons. Someone has to take the lead.
Japan are. It’s not working.
Japan don´t have nuclear weapons.
No, they are sacred and superior! It’s the amazing culture they want to export. Preaching other countries and killing their leaders and civilians.
Yes. Nuclear arms are treath for all of us and should be banned for everybody.
First, dust off a few of those things and fire them off to make sure they still work.
Yes! Every country should!
France should keep them
No, as nuclear weapons destroy or to be more specific, disappear life on Earth. It’s time governments gave up such programmes.
no, in case of emergancy we can use em for interstellar travel but reducing their number we must
In simple terms fuck of EU. Germany to win ww3 with the help of the EU
no. this is a dumb question in a world where the DPRK is test-firing missiles.
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.
While the Iran and NK are still nuclear? I think the answer is clear..
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.
Thanks for the insult comrade but if you look closely the reality is Britain is still ‘Great’ :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/12/brexit-britain-wields-influence-europe-second-us-worldwide/
EU is peace, they said! Our deterrent power is certainly not to protect others nations, from which planet are you coming? Did you smoke before writing such bullshits?
Ivan, London happens to be my all-time favourite city, and I love the UK and Brits in general, why I’m disappointed the majority voted on leaving as opposed to reforming, a contribution that would have been a useful, pragmatic, no-nonsense debate.
Ask Ukraine about benefits of giving up nuclear weapons in exchange of defense promises…
By making a coup d’état and allowing nationalists to rule?
With the EU dictatorship gaining its army Great Britain will increase it nuclear capacity not give it up, we now have more targets :)
Will you be quit! Im Tired of reading your vomit all the time.
Mark Sjøberg Good morning troll, nice to see the EU’s hatred of free speech on show :)
If they are made by british engineers I’d just like to not see them flop and blow up London.
Miguel Hilário Lol, if you say so comrade lol
http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.4482749.1498072567!/image/image.jpg
Why does the future Kingdom of only England and Wales need nukes? Seriously, WHY??
As long as it will stay permanent member of the council UNO’s! Like USA, France, china and Russia!
What about Israel nuclear weapons?
Shut up, don’t speak to much from the elected people!
Hell yeah
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 .
il premio nobel per la pace andrebbe assegnato alla Costituzione italiana 1948 allora sarebbe un premio che manda un messaggio di VERA PACE
Tu as raison, mais c’est dans la nature humaine de se détruire pour trouver sa place! C’est triste…
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
En théorie… Mais on apprend jamais de ses erreurs, l’histoire ne se répète pas, mais bégaie seulement! ;)
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)
and then be invaded by russia with no hope of fighting back because if we do they nuke us? what a brilliant plan
Invaded by Russia??? We’re in the empire of Uncle Sam, impossible, did you watch too much hollywoodians movies?
Hell No in France, I could care less about the UK, that’s Trumps decision
Ofc, they are already democratized :V
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.
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.
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?
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.
Wake up, we’re in an economical war, maybe less casualties, but so much poverty and taxes!
Rémi Martin An economic war where our own are attacking us, instead of standing by us.
Simply because we share nothing all the 27…
Great. So when u know the facts, andrea, why state that we need to have more nuclear bombs?
UK and France should not give up their nukes just yet.
When Israel will destroy his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons…
yeah, to Russia, ASAP :))))
How else will we pay for the new aircraft to go on the new aircraft carriers
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
Hell NO
It s geting late….
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.
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.
François Asselineau: «Le Nobel de la Paix est un moyen pour Washington de faire prévaloir ses intérêts géopolitiques»
No it is not ok (even as last chance to shoot the big rock from space)
UK and France shuld remove their army out of germany and end occupation.
A strange thing to say given Germany now again ‘occupies’ most of western Europe, you really have learnt nothing from your history have you.
France withdrew its occupation force in Germany after reunification.
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!!!
Alves Henriques – Really? There still live those who remember and suffered from German occupation, Hitler and the German Nazis ….
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.
Gerard Francois uk, france, usa keep their army in germany. ilegal occupation talking about “freedom” and “democracy” yeah right.
Rémi Martin yes the USA army also shuld end occupation of europe and go back to USA.
Why are you dare criticizing France and UK?
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.
Sorry, we germans dont need some weird nor german nazi to tell us we are not free. Thank u
Alves Henriques No USA army means you will have the Russian army, great idea.
Typical propaganda from Hollywood!
Ivan Burrows a european army in europe <3 love it
USA army is not welcome in europe Never.
from Portugal to Russia we all Europe. or “nazis” as the haters call us
we in europe want to speak germans or russian sure. not arab or pesmerg. go back to arabie saudit leave europe for europeans.
russia cristians VS USA heretic islamics , its not dificult to choose.
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!
Rémi Martin serais mieux si on parlerais tous allemand ou russe, aux lieux de aprendre arab a l´école.
l´anglais le languaje de l´énemie.
Moi, le français me va très bien, j’aime pas être dominé!
Κωνσταντίνος Αγαΐτσης
μακ μακ nuclears in the western countries and our brains in the mixer
Rémi Martin la france aux français. point final.
Κωνσταντίνος Αγαΐτσης deport
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 .
If the world would be so ruled… 😂😂😂
Something to ponder I guess, there are more peaceful ways
Everybody should. Not just Britain and France.
Yes but, not before Russia and especially the USA.
You forget Israël!
Yes, please give it to me!!!
On you, it’ll be enough! Joke…
Yes, they should.
Should North Korea? What about India? Is there a rank for the good and bad countries? And who’s ranking them? Food for thought…
Nothing to see here folks, hes on crack
😂😂😂
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.
Larma Vince 🤣😂😂 saved indeed
Cut the crap Debating Europe!! We had this discussion again some time ago and the verdict was pretty clear.
The same questions ‘re always coming, didn’t you notice that?
Tell them, Makis McMak!
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…..
As permanent members from UNO’s council, like USA, Russia and China!
Of course NOTE.
nahh we should get some more – so the world destruction in the aftermath is total.
NO, IT TANTAMOUNTS TO SURRENDER TO RUSSIA.
Of course not.
No Iran is coming
It myst be done all over the world…
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?
All countrys should give up their nuclear weapons.
russia first! : D
😂😂😂😂 Why not Uncle Sam, he was the first one to use it on a people!
No, they shouldn’t. Nuclear weapons are the best guarantee of peace, no matter what some silly, naive or ill-intentioned activists might say.
give it up to who? russia? like Ukraine in 1995? hahaha!!
It was a condition to income on common market, without it, it would be embargo like NK!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Je vais te laisser dans ton délire hollywwodien, bonne nuit!
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuSxv9wjbhs
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
L’Ukraine a décidé de les abandonner, point final. Comme le Belarus!
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.
And No army for Germany please
pls stick to the subject, even if you feel threatened personally by the Bundeswehr. Even if you feel personally threatened by the Greek army.
Thibaud Ochem and who are you?
The referee ?
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…
Why does IS never attack Israël?
Not yet
This will never happen in my view. Or if they did someone would develop a worse weapon. This homo Sapiens we’re talking about.
No. Make them green…
Yes, give up weapons.
France and UK give up thei weapon if USA, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and Iran give up their weapon
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
There’re 5 members…
The permant member yes
Ok, j’avais compris que tu en comptais seulement 4, 1+3! ;)
non
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.
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.
Before Germany gets nucle”ar weapons, they should ask Uncle Sam to go home!
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?
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.
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”
Yesssss
No give up good weapons . For free and safe Europe
The World should give up nuclear power totally and get more pussy instead
Don’t worry about France…France is a dying country…..goodbye France
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!
Arms keep peace
Strive for peace, but always keep your sword sharpened and at the ready
Νο. Turkey and Russia unfortunately build news in Mediterranean. A new othomans empire building against ALL westerners. Some Muslims countries have very bad leaders
reduce maybe, but not totally get rid of
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).
It is for the 2 governments do decide, not the EU or us.
Better people…
Who came up with this idea?
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.
You forget USA as corrupt terror states…
And Turkey…
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.
“that is a weapon for last resort”, sorry, but you won’t deceide for us when we’ll have to use it…
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.
No. Just no.
Absolutely no. It is not something you can undo, once it’s done, it’s done, there is no coming back.
THE VERY QUESTION IS ITSELF DEEPLY STUPID!!!
NO, absolutely not
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!
What ???
No they should keep them updated
Nuclear weapons are the reason we havent had WW3 for a record period of time. And you want europe to give them up?
If they have got thermonuclear ones – they could get rid of the nuclear weapons.
No no No!!!
Don’t be silly, we will need the Nukes when the EU army starts threatening us.
what an idiot
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.
why should they and not US, Russia, etc? Everybody should
In the name of what? A world governement?
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…
Hell No, we have Russia on our border, ask Ukraine how that worked out
Keep cool, you’re sucking Uncle Sam for that!
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
Tim Nick Knight No doubt to be called the Wehrmacht, how does it feel to be owned by the Germans again ?
Ivan Burrows, projecting as a dumpy want a be American state
Be good, Trump might throw you a bone
Europeans have learnt nothing from their history and are destined to repeat it…
And become prisoners of gasprom?
Absolutely. It is essential for Britain and France to maintain nuclear readiness
Meaning one day we’re gonna launch one?
Weren’t we against war?
No. Deterrence. With North Korea in the neighbourhood don’t want to take any chances
Did you watch to much hollywoodians movies?
No they should not
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
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.
Chinese are 1/3 of the world population 😂
And meaning to use a-bombs in the future is a crime against humanity
Everyone should give up nukes.
Yes, at the same pace as others do.
While russia and the us hold 7000 warheads each? Nope
No. They are the waranty nobody will dare to attack Europe. We cannot always relay on USA.
The Brits do not give a sh…. well, a shilling about Europe. :P
Yeah, let’s give all our weapons away so muslims can conquer us even easier…
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.
Yes.
They are (tactically and strategically) useless and costly.
Good luck keeping Russia out without Nukes.
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.
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 ?
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
The Whole World needs to be Nuclear Weapons Free.
Who protects the elites?
What protects you ?
Russia and America would never do that.
Russia first!
No.
yes a complete waste of money
No it isnt at all.
I think tactical is important to be further developed
as long as russia and china have them, no way
With the enemy that is the EU so close ?, not a chance lol
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.
I think they should keep them
Definately NOT the are the biggest deterent we can have and a threat to those who need to be put incheck.
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.
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.
Both Britain & France should both start paying up for the genetical defects and environmental damage they have both caused though.
MAD keeps proving itself as a functioning strategy, so no, absolutely not.
No. The main strategic alternatives are:
1: Free-ride the NATO alliance even harder.
2: Kow-tow to Russia. And China.
Neither are acceptable.
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.
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
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.
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.
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