Noam Chomsky's Views on Trident

[Shabbychic]

Noam Chomsky was mentioned on here the other day, and I thought some might be interested on his views on Trident, and a couple of other things. There is also a link at the end to watch the full interview.

[BetterTogether]

How do you think a nuclear free out of NATO Scotland/ UK would fare in today's modern more hostile world. Would we be a safer place being respected by everyone globally for disarming or might we find ourselves at risk from bigger more aggressive states that don't respect human rights and view pacifism as a weakness to be exploited.

[theone]

In a perfect world nuclear weapons wouldn't exist.

But it's not a perfect world and they do exist.

Removing Trident wouldn't make nuclear weapons disappear. You can't un-invent the technology.

Yes, you could 'take the lead' and become the first country to disarm itself of nuclear weapons, it might encourage others to do the same - but I'm sure not all would follow.

As long as others have weapons that could be used against us, I think we should have similar weapons as a deterrent.

[Fulmar]

Except that to use them is M.A.D. and would ensure the destruction of humanity and the world as we know it.

[BetterTogether]

Except that to use them is M.A.D. and would ensure the destruction of humanity and the world as we know it.

It didn't last time we used them !

[theone]

Except that to use them is M.A.D. and would ensure the destruction of humanity and the world as we know it.

Indeed.

That is why it is such a fine deterrent.

[cptdodger]

Except that to use them is M.A.D. and would ensure the destruction of humanity and the world as we know it.

Okay to put it simply for you, here's a scenario - you are a burglar, two houses - one with two rottweilers one with none, which do you choose to burgle ?

Unfortunately it is not quite so easy for me to forget the fact that atomic bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as my aunty is Japanese and my cousin, half Japanese. If the use of them had "ensured the destruction of humanity and the world as we know it" I would not have an aunt or a cousin.

[Fulmar]

Well, the bombs now are massively more powerful that the ones that were dropped in Japan and the 'MAD' is the acknowledged term and stands for 'Mutually Assured Destruction'.
If you cannot use a weapon because it will also destroy you if you deploy it then it is of questionable value.
I would have thought that the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite enough, with the legacy of them continuing to this day (and they were just 'baby bombs' by today's 'standards) but if you are happy with your rottweilers then good for you.

[cptdodger]

with the legacy of them continuing to this day (and they were just 'baby bombs' by today's 'standards)

Do you not think I am aware of that ? They may just have been "baby bombs", however I think the people that "survived" the bombings would probably think that irrelevant. Trident is a deterrent, one I would rather have considering the nations that also have nuclear technology at their fingertips, which may not be let's just say as balanced as the rest of the world.

[Alrock]

If Trident is just a deterent & we would be MAD to use it can't we just pretend to have them, I won't tell anybody we don't really have them, honest...

Then again maybe we are already being fooled & we don't have them.

[tonkatojo]

If Trident is just a deterent & we would be MAD to use it can't we just pretend to have them, I won't tell anybody we don't really have them, honest...

Then again maybe we are already being fooled & we don't have them.

This could be as good a reason as any to keep them.

[BetterTogether]

The question you should also ask is do you really want to take the word of a self confessed socialist pacifist anarchist who makes a fortune out of writing books when it comes to a nations defence.

[theone]

If you cannot use a weapon because it will also destroy you if you deploy it then it is of questionable value.

And if your opponent has the same dilemma then they are most unlikely to use it also. The perfect deterrent.

I think it's safe to say that it was the presence of nuclear weapons that prevented Russia and NATO going to war between the 50's and 70's.

You can't change the laws of physics, nuclear weapons are possible and the technology exists to develop them. That being the case, I'd rather make sure I've got them to give any would-be opponents that very dilemma. Hurt me and you are hurt also.

[cptdodger]

Two questions for those who think we should not have a nuclear deterrent.

1) If we get rid of Trident, how do we defend ourselves?

2) How many of you campaigned to get rid of Dounreay and Vulcan, remembering the only reason they were built here was because the Government of the day decided it didn't matter if the North of Scotland was blown sky high if something went wrong ?

[Fulmar]

Well, in my view, nuclear power and nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is entirely different to nuclear weapons. Even Iran under the new arrangements is being allowed to have 'peaceful' nuclear technology.
The point to consider is whether it is truly safer to be in possession of nuclear weapons that you can never use because it would cause a doomsday scenario and which cost a fortune to manufacture and to maintain. I know what I think about that, as do you, it is just that we are on different sides of the argument- that is fine by me. I won't convince you and you will not change my mind either- that is how it is.
As for defence, well come on! I think that you will find that the recent 'defence' of the UK (and there has been a lot of it already this century) and that the UK has been involved in has relied upon conventional weapons and superb levels of training, excellence and expertise. I for one applaud that and wish to see it maintained and made even better and not subjected to the cuts that have gone on recently. So we probably share some common ground on that at least.

[cptdodger]

Well, in my view, nuclear power and nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is entirely different to nuclear weapons.

Would the loss of however many lives due to an "accident" be more acceptable than somebody dropping a bomb on us ? The outcome would be exactly the same.

[theone]

Indeed power and weapons are completely different.

Recent defense of the UK has indeed been with conventional forces, and I hope that continues but there is no guarantee.

[BetterTogether]

The reality is there are nuclear weapons you can use without the destruction of hundred of thousands of people. Battle Field theatre Nuclear weapons have limited scope we have those as well as the big boys so it's the mix which gives people a headache not jus trident

[theone]

The reality is there are nuclear weapons you can use without the destruction of hundred of thousands of people. Battle Field theatre Nuclear weapons have limited scope we have those as well as the big boys so it's the mix which gives people a headache not jus trident

Indeed.

But I don't think many politicians would dream of using even low yield tactical nuclear weapons. The hysteria use of ANY nuclear weapon would cause would be too great.

The step between conventional and nuclear wars would be a big one, perhaps more symbolically than in terms of lives lost.

30 million civilians died in WW2. Less than 250,000 died through nuclear weapons. For those 30 million it matters not a jot whether the bomb was conventional or nuclear - either way they are dead.

The standoff, the deterrent of MAD keeps the peace. Use ANY nuclear weapon and the can of worms of what is 'acceptable' and what is not is opened.

[BetterTogether]

I'd agree with your post.I was trying to make the point that the smaller ones would probably be used before anything large being swung into action. Meanwhile we still have the spectre of some rogue group getting their hands on some form of nuclear device, I appreciate a lot of it is scaremongering as Nuclear weapons can't be knocked up in your garden shed over a weekend.