Face it, if you Brits ditched all the nukes and built a 50 foot tall Margaret Thatcher robot, you'd have your entire Empire back within a month without firing a shot... and Putin would soil his trousers.
Disclaimer: I don't like nukes, and I want to see global disarmament. I don't think you explained the idea of deterrence adequately. It's not simply about revenge. It's about making the cost of attack so high that no sane country would go through with it in the first place. It's true that no country with nukes has ever been attacked. I'm going to put the example of North Korea to you. Kim Jong Un and his military advisers believe that the country and regime are under existential threat of invasion from South Korea and the US. Economic sanctions have made it very difficult for them to keep their conventional military and training up to date and sufficient to deter an attack. Also consider that in the past, the USA has threatened to use nuclear weapons on NK in the event of war. Whether or not they actually would is irrelevant. Kimmy believes this to be the case. He believes nukes are the only viable way left for him to deter an attack. I'm not sure I'd disagree in his place. The North Koreans would point to the example of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. He gave up his nuclear programme in exchange for concessions from the West, only to have his country bombed and his throat slit 10 years later. Would Libya be a chaotic Jihadi hotbed today if it had a viable nuclear deterrent? I'm of the opinion that if any country has nukes, nations which feel threatened by that country have the right to develop a deterrent. Disarmament has to be an all or nothing thing. So long as the big countries like the USA insist on having them, we can't have a viable disarmament regime. In this line of thinking, I'm in favour of China's policy of "minimum deterrence". Yes, the UK could set an example, and I don't think it would be under a greater threat if it did, but I can understand the people who feel differently. The argument about cost isn't valid. Look up Modern Monetary Theory. It posits that the current neoliberal narrative of debt and deficit in government budgets is a completely artificial situation for a country which controls its own money supply. The UK finance minister could go to the bank of England and have it write a cheque to write off the budget deficit tomorrow if he wanted to. Whether a country can afford nukes or not is only a matter of resources and technical expertise. The UK could easily have nukes and fund healthcare, education, and social welfare.
I'd say that the solution isn't to get rid of nukes, but rather global military disarmament. If all nations have nukes, but no troops, then no nation has a reason to use them. At that point, we could then have nuclear disarmament.
This is 3 years old and i agree with alot of the stuff you said, I do wanna mention though that India and Pakistan actually did attack each other and they are both nuclear powers. Consensus in IR seems to be that attacks against nuclear powers tend to be smaller, like poking someone with a needle, in the hope that the attack is small enough to *not* trigger a nuclear response. And that's playing with matches, so really MAD is not all that world peacy thing it's cracked up to be. Totally agree that is has to be a international cooperation thing, with treatises and everything.
A backup Scotland would make perfect sense, since UK is about to lose the original one. And a giant Mecha-Tatcher would awesome, send that into the war against ISIS and you're pretty much set for victory.
If the USA or Russia nukes you, it doesn't. But if North Korea sends their first nuke to London, a strike back at them could destroy their capability to build and launch more nukes.
I think you are more or less missing the main point of having nuclear weapons. The question does not really evolve around wether one should respond or not. It is about avoiding the situation in the first place by letting enemies know that you are able to respond and destroy them IF they attack you. This, of course, goes both ways. Anyway, great video as always :-) I am not completly sure what I think om the topic myself, so videos like this are very helpful for me :-) (English is not my first language, but I hope my point got across)
I think that having nuclear weapons in the backhand is one of the main reasons why nations who have them are willing to make quite aggressive world politics, since it gives them a feeling of safety. It is no surprise that that the nations with such weapons are mostly the nations that have some kind of veto power in the UN, they basically keep the entire world hostage, and so without that the UK would lose some leverage they currently have. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should keep the weapons, but they are a political tool and that goes far beyond just having the option to retaliate.
Drudenfusz That's like negotiating with your gun on the table. Politics just don't work that way, everybody sees you as a douche for flexing your muscles, and beating your chest.
Eugene S I wasn't saying that this is good or in any other way justifiable, but it is nevertheless a policy most of the powers with nuclear weapons at their disposal are going for. So, regardless what you and I might think of it, it seems to be work for them and thus prove that politics sadly work that way.
Drudenfusz Can you present an example? I believe it did work that way recently, but not so much today. An example is the US vs Russia over Ukraine thing. In the past, we would have rattled our sabers at each other, pointed missiles at each other and dedicated more money on military spending. Today, we impose sanctions, and Russia almost falls apart overnight without a single threatening gesture. Economies and people are directly tied to eachother's success today, so it benefits nobody to wage war any more.
Eugene S I agree with you that economics is more important these days, but only in cases of negotioation, if it comes to invading another country with your military (and lets face it that is what the USA did in Iraq and Afganistan and so on or what you mention Russia is doing with the Ukraine), then having these weapons make most nations think twice in getting military involved in this but only go for some sanctions. I mean Look at cuba, what did that nation do to the USA? And do you think that other nations would bow to the USA and their sactions against cuba if they wouldn't have that military power? Again, I am not defending having such weapons, I am just saying they still have a real impact in politics.
Drudenfusz It's hard to tell how big the impact is on politics, but remember that the rest of the world doesn't bow down to the US because they have nukes, it's because they're the economic superpower of the world. If you don't play by the US's rules, you don't get ahead. I guess the question would be how much extra political power does India/Pakistan/Israel have because of their weapons? Personally, I don't believe it's a significant gain for them, and maybe even negative.... not sure on those, chime in. Cuba was made an example of by the US to show the rest of the world this is what happens if you side with the enemy. Yes, it was absolutely dumb, but during a cold war, you have to pretend to be a bit crazy so your opponent thinks you might actually do it.
The best reason for the MAD plan I can think of is that, after the enemy nukes you, and leaves you 2 million people less then you once were, if you cant do the same to them, then you'll be spending all of your resources recovering, while they can attack you more directly as they please. If you play any real time strategy games, a good analogy I can think for this is that using the nuke is the equivalent of destroying, lets just say, half of a player's economy. So when a player does this to you, not only have you lost half of your income, but you have to spend your built up and incoming resources repairing that hole in your economy best you can, leaving the enemy miles ahead of you. But if you can do that back to your enemy, it leaves you both in the vulnerable recover position (So just pray that there isnt an extra, un-nuked enemy to come and ruin your day) I'm not sure if that's a good argument by any means, but it's the best justification I can think of.
In America, you'd be surprised how often "we should just use nukes" is thrown around as a solution to every problem in the middle east or east Asia (weirdly though, it's never brought up as a solution to problems in Europe or the Americas. read into that what you will). Even though most of the time people are joking when they say that, many Americans really do like the idea of nukes because it's a nice "clean and easy" solution to potentially any complicated problem Israel and Palestine? Nuke em China owns too much of our debt? nuke em In many ways, that's our justification for nuking japan in world war 2: the situation would have been really long and complicated, and just in general hard to deal with, so nuking them was probably more efficient (by the way, I'm not saying that logic is wrong-- by most accounts from military experts who know more about this than me a land invasion of japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides) What I'm saying is that I feel in America Nuclear weapons are seen as uncomplicated and simple and that's why people like them so much. They're a way of taking nuanced issues and making them about as unnuanced as you can get.
Austin LaBonty Their simplicity is a part of their appeal. Anyone who sees a few nuclear explosions can understand the world-ending destruction that the use of nuclear weapons makes possible. They are essentially the ultimate trump card. Counter-intuitively, I think this casual talk about the use of nuclear weapons is actually to everyone's benefit. Think of it like a never-ending propaganda campaign to assure the world at large that the US is willing to use nukes AGAIN. So don't get too out of line. I think nuclear weapons keep alive the specter of entire countries being destroyed all at once. Until we live in a utopian world of abundance, I think such a specter works in favor of maintaining mostly-peace between the most powerful nations. That said, we should work towards reducing stockpiles and it's less clear Britain needs any -- they could just sign a treaty with another nuclear state to defend them.
Except the entire specter of mutually assured destruction is the ultimate logical extreme of an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. If we use nukes, even if only on our enemies, the fallout will hurt us all. There's no point to having nukes because using them cannot be an option.
Austin LaBonty There have been over 2,000 nuclear explosions to date, and we're all still here with longer average lifespans than ever. Fallout is a real problem, but it's not so bad that it will "hurt us all" -- that's hyperbole. As for eye for an eye, no: that's not the approach that has guided US policy in the past. It's far more extreme and effective: if one bomb drops on the US, the opposing country will be devastated until their war-making capability is eliminated. The US response to an attack would be vastly more impactful than the original attack. This is why nukes function as a deterrent. If it was just eye for an eye then more countries would probably have used them by now. They haven't used them because they know the response wouldn't just be an equal number of their citizens killed, it would be the end of the world, or at very least them getting bombed into the stone age.
BobWidlefish The difference is that those 2,000 nuke tests didn't take place over cities. A nuke in every major city in a country is a completely different ball game. Yes we would survive, and yes, earth would probably not even blink, but the toll of that many lives lost is not insignificant. And you wouldn't want to live in that country for a while afterwards.
Eugene S Yes, the cities that gets bombed (and the area around them for quite a distance) would be in bad shape for sure. But if Britain bombs Yemen (or whatever) that's not going to have much impact on Australia or the US. It's not necessarily the case that we all suffer. If the US and Russia kick off their cold war mutually assured destruction scenarios then that would have an effect that is not well localized....it would surely cause a nuclear winter, among other less than pleasant side effects for most the world. But as we saw in 1945 in Japan it is possible to have relatively localized impacts even with absolutely crude nuclear weapon prototypes.
7:48 actually that 50ft firebreathing margaret thatcher would 1:be awesome 2:be a great weapon that wouldn't have those many civilian casualties 3:could be used to scare off enemies because WHO WANTS TO FIGHT THAT STUFF!? and finally 4: because someone will make an attack on thatcher anime about it
i've read lots of -pulp- literature on the matter, we don't need nukes we have perfectly acceptable stds that can do just as much damage AND are relatively freely available
good question on the "would i retaliate with a nuclear strike." Yes. i would. It needs to be a precedent to assure any nation state that if it were to launch a nuke, then it would be 100 percent likely for a counter strike to occur. It would be horrible. but future generations would become safer from nukes if mutually assured destruction was enforced.
While I hold the same opinion as Olly, I think that "you would be just killing 2 million people more and not getting the people who pressed the button" makes it look much more simpler than it really is. I would say it's a strawman. Isn't that just what most war is about, anyways? Destruction fueled by political interests, _very frequently_ including massive civilian casualties, rarely resulting in the death of supposedly targeted political leaders? The position that "it's just petty revenge" makes it look more easy to defend than it is. In reality, you need to defend that war itself is unjustifiable, and that's much harder.
BinaryHistory Funnily enough Glover does attempt to outline what a just war is in the very same book. But I didn't have time to go into it, so fair cop.
BinaryHistory I had some thoughts regarding nuclear strikes and how similar they are to general warfare during the video. Let's compare the nuclear attack from a foreign power scenario with one involving a foreign invasion. The correct response is to push back the invasion and invade the attacking country yourself, but that's different from a retaliatory nuclear strike. A counter-invasion is retaliatory, but with the purpose of neutralizing the threat in order to protect your citizens and country from further violence. A retaliatory nuclear strike has no such strategic benefit since the threat won't necessarily be neutralized, as Ollie pointed out. The strike would only be an act of retribution in the styling of "an eye for an eye" punishment. War is a destructive activity, the most destructive behavior humans engage in I think, but it isn't simply wanton destruction like a nuclear bombing. The fact that a war has strategic goals and interests (in this scenario related to defense rather than offense) makes the act more nuanced than just causing destruction and mayhem.
Dalton Tonga The massive destruction of a nuclear bomb can be used to fulfill strategic goals, like any other weapon. The damage could weaken a country, for example.
2:54 the whole point of mutualy assured destruction is that it never gets to that point. however i must admit it dosen't benifit you its not meant to edit: 3:19 the idea of a future in which both sides lose is enough to prevent either from laumching the nukes in the first place
Absolutely. For some reason our leaders prefer to kowtow to the Americans, rather than seeing them as the potential threat they are. Our leadership has also made some alarming mistakes when dealing with the Chinese, and others on the world stage. Enough Americans voted for Donald Joffrey Pumpkinhead that they were able to dismiss 45's election rigging as the paranoid fantasy of 'butthurt Liberals.' This is frightening. They've also failed to impeach him. And he and the GOP have changed enough political paradigms that it may come down to all out destruction of the planet before the decade is over. We need to renew alliances with China. But more importantly, Canada needs Mother England now, as much as we've ever needed our long time allies. There's a narcissistic dictator at the helm of the US machine who's undoing every step the Americans have made toward fair and inclusive democracy in the last 100 years. It would not surprise me if he were to start undoing the legal mechanisms of the last 200 years, if he's able to cheat his way into a second term. And his influence threatens the entire world. *So yes. Please* keep your nukes. Keep your allies in the rest of the former British colonies safe from that megalomaniac.
This line of thinking misses the point entirely. MAD is a great idea, and Britain should keep her nukes. If Kaboom is about to attack London, knowing there will be NO retaliation, what stops them? They're already preparing to attack, so they clearly believe it's a good idea, and diplomatic relations are unlikely to resolve a situation so grave. The only thing that keeps Kaboom out of Britain is the fear of (at least) proportionate response. Also, consider the scenario in which Kaboom tells Britain "you'd better do X or we'll nuke you." If they have nukes and you've disarmed, you're in a bad place. The #1 rule of negotiation is ALWAYS negotiate from a position of strength. I'm an American, and from my side of the pond, the hug-a-bad-guy mentality seems to be pervasive in Britain (or at least very outspoken). What a shame. You were once great.
+Travis Sims The negotiation and debating manuals I've studied don't place huge emphasis on a position of strength, and even if they did nuclear power isn't the only strong position: economic interdependence and the potential sanctions of an international community are both good ones too. And all of that assumes that there even is a real-life counterpart of Kaboom in the first place. Today happens to be the Labour leadership election, so it's funny that you mention 'Great' Britain. Britain used to be Great as in big, and it used to be Great as in 'Great and Terrible.' But I think it's yet to be Great as in *great*. Lots of people here think like you, that the country used to be great and we need to get back there. But I think the real greatest days of my country are still ahead of it.
Dunno, man. You didn't explore Brinkmanship, neither Cuba-Crises nor Reykjavik '86. Since Realpolitik is an infinite game, you have to bomb, if someone is calling your cards, otherwise it won't work again. Now it's 2018 and the Chinese have tasted super sonic missiles, circumventing conventional defense systems. If they have an defense against US ICBMs, how does that play out - regarding Taiwan? .. and what ya gonna do when NATO calls?
I think it is like a status symbol, granted, it is an expensive one. It helps project an image of power, and that image may be worth more than the billions spent. Obviously the bombs aren't the sole reason that countries are seen as powerful. But every time a country starts atomic development we get a little nervous and are forced to take them seriously *cough north korea *cough
Interestingly though, the scenario you mentioned, with _one_ bomb going off in London is one where retaliating might actually be a reasonable thing to do. If the state that attacked the UK has more nukes, you backing up your threats with actual action might lead them to assume that sending more nukes your way would only cause you to incinerate more of their cities as well. However, that's only one of the reasons why sending a test nuke and see what happens is such a blatantly stupid idea that it will never actually happen. Just saying that using the one-nuke example was actually kind of an odd choice.
cole lolicato That's very sweet of you to say, and thanks: making sure I disclose who is commissioning stuff and so on is something I spend a lot of time working to get right. I'm glad you've stuck around since so early on :)
Oh please do renew Trident, a weak UK economy will make it cheaper for me to import UK products such as Coleman's mustard, Cheddar cheese and HP sauce to Austria.
You know, as an American born after the 50s, I've always taken the fact that nuclear weapons are important as a given. I've never considered the obvious problem with the MAD principle like the way you put it forward. That chilling silence after you said, "How would retaliating benefit you in any way whatsoever?" totally floored me. That said, here's my cynical realist answer that undoes your entire argument: tribalism. Americans, British, whoever... they don't care about enemy civilians because they're not "us." "They" aren't anyone of value because they're not "us." Similarly, I'll throw in the "one death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistic," quote, too. Even if a huge amount of people died after a nuclear weapon was dropped, the government could spin it to the point where the layperson would say, "Well, I guess it was justified." I mean, how long did it take before people started questioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yeah, logically the moral evil of nuclear weapons seems pretty cut-and-dry. But people aren't logical... they're so easily misled. So easily biased.
Well, the mutually assured destruction would mean that further threats will be neutralised, essentially acting as damage control. It is, fundamentally, prevention being better than cure, with regards to preserving the affected lives.
Nice one Ollie. The "reason we can't think of" is a euphemism. It isn't a reason they "can't think of", they know what it is perfectly well. It's a reason they can't _tell us_. Which is why we can have no part in the discussion about weather or not our nation has nuclear weapons. Actually, I suspect that if we knew what it was, we would revolt against any government for even considering it, but equally important and equally hidden are the secret service reasons. These reasons need to exist, because there are equally strong reasons we don't know about which are held against us. These reasons are only effective if our enemies (which, in peace-time, we don't know who they will be either) do not know what they are. If civilians, and voters are allowed to openly debate these reasons, they are no longer the reasons, because open debate means our (as yet unknown) enemies already know them, and your surprise attack has failed before you've started it. So, the reason we need nuclear weapons is because... "Godzilla is real!", or "Martians are real!", or "Zombies are real!", or "We need to shoot down stray asteroids" or... No, the real reason we need nuclear weapons is to remove large swathes of civilian populations. Large swathes of civilian populations who, for example, will not accept a form of government which is acceptable to you, or your people. Because people can only be governed if they allow themselves to be. *And* we need nuclear weapons because you're not allowed to know why we need them, unless you've already agreed that we *definitely* do need them, *and* can tell us why, *and* it's the same reason we already knew that we can't tell you. BTW. I _don't_ agree with this, but it is the truth behind the argument, which is why it is *no* argument and can *never* be debated. We either demand a constitutional change to say that no government can ever maintain WMDs, or we accept that they _are_ going to maintain them, and we will pay for it, whatever we think about it. We _cannot_ *ask* them not to maintain it. We will have to *tell them*. I suspect we will need to tell them with considerable violent force, because otherwise they will insist that we protest against non-arguments as above. _"Guess what colour I'm thinking of, or I punch you on the nose."_
Question: if a Deterrent is "not necessary" because it benefits nobody if used as is said they would, then are you telling me that all people whom have the ability to use said weapons as a deterrent wouldn't prefer to use them as first strike? Britain keeps them around as a deterrent ... so how many countries do we know that intends to use it as a First strike? if we know of any, wouldn't that therefor justify the non fake deterrent? it may not benefit us to nuke the people whom nuked us, but wouldn't it be a benefit to all those whom actually fake their nuclear deterrent program? they wouldn't have to get involved, just protect themselves from the fallout while a potential enemy is wiped out for hoping that it was just a bluff. it would then strengthen others bluffs. and potentially prevent a nuclear winter rather than cause one.
Hi Oli, Thanks for the video. I just had a few thoughts that I would like to share. Being very liberal in most other ways my views on nuclear weapons have always been a little embarrassing to me, in that I am from the UK a supporter of the Green party but for Trident's renewal. I would love to think otherwise but there are always a few doubts that I feel are unanswered when I am presented with the disarmament argument. The first is the power to bluff. Like you, I agree that in the event that London (or any other UK city) was attacked by nuclear weapons then there would be little point executing millions of civilians from another state in retribution. This position, however, has not been taken by our preceding prime ministers. Which to me would leave even a hint of doubt in the would-be aggressor's eyes that there may be a chance that the UK would retaliate. With a nuclear weapon even a hint of doubt is large deterrent. In regards to going full bluff and making the rockets out of foam tubes I have two things to say. Firstly, although I am not an expert on nuclear weapons engineering, I imagine it would be difficult to fake to such a degree you would save a huge amount of money. You would still need to produce the submarines capable of carrying nuclear devices for a period of time, you would still need the bases and you would still need to make the whole charade as genuine as possible all the while running the risk that your ploy may be discovered any render the deterrent useless. The second point is, let's say that this policy is possible and the government had decided to play this bluff, what would the process now of renewing it look like? The same as if it were real, i.e. what it looks like now. They would need to project and, at least superficially, withdraw the imaginary costs for trident from the budget to convince foreign governments that we were actually building the rockets. Now, I don't believe this is what the government is doing but it is worth considering what that would look like. Another point is that nuclear weapons are not only used against cities, they can be used tactically on the battlefield. What I mean to say here is not that nuclear weapons can be used exactly like conventional bombs but the can be used in a manner more similar to them. Giving up nuclear weapons would in my eyes at least, adversely affect the ability of the conventional armed forces as well. The last thing I want to mention is that, although perhaps it is too much of a conjecture to say this, there have been no major wars between powerful countries since those countries got hold of nuclear weapons. This is not to say these wars can't happen but perhaps having raised the cost of war so much, maybe nuclear weapons play a bizarrely pacifying role in the world. I think of the Cold War and the possibility of armed conflict being avoided between the US and USSR for more the 50 years as well as any future standoff between Russia, China and the US as being examples were nuclear weapons may be being seen to play a peaceful role. If I were going to critique my own argument though, it would be on the points of human mistake, malfunction and abduction of nuclear material by terrorists. As I find the probability of these issues difficult to quantify though, I also find them difficult to work sensible into my thinking.
I'm not British, so I can't really say what your government should be doing. But, I believe, in general, that acts of revenge and vengeance can be forgiven or at least understood - in the case of CIVILIANS. The government, however, is supposedly an institution/group of 'experts' in the area of politics and issues like these. They shouldn't be corrupted by strong emotions and hatred as a civilian understandably could. The government has a huge responsibility, in my opinion, to send out the right message to its people and to other nations: we are a people of peace and will only retaliate in self defense; we will not attack out of revenge where it will not benefit our people. I feel that for any country to possess weaponry that WILL kill hundreds of civilians (who, unlike soldiers, would not have chosen to engage in combat at all!), is a huge ethical injustice. As this video stated, these weapons have next to no benefits, only destruction. In short, I think governments are supposed to be the 'mature' ones - unlike the average person, they are experts in theses areas and there decisions should be affected by reason and ethics, NOT emotion. This is why I think NO countries should possess nuclear weaponry - even though this is a highly idealised desire.
Nukes are pretty much obsolete due to our current extremely advanced and accurate missiles, bombs and drones. Unless you had to take out an entire complex whole all at one stroke they are too devastating. There are very few cases where they are tactically beneficial, for example, if there was a major port where the enemy was getting all their supplies in, or a major marshalling ground readying for an invasion.
dangerouslytalented While I essentially agree, the truth is there is still a strategic case to be made for having the capability of destroying a whole city (or country) at a time, at least as a deterrent. Plus, what if you ever wanted to turn a large area of desert into glass? Conventional weapons just aren't up to the task.
dangerouslytalented Yes, but even in those case, a few B2's with cluster bombs, some drones, and a crapload of cruise missiles would be able to do the same job for a TINY fraction of the cost. Without irradiating the earth and being vilified by the rest of the world.
HappyandAtheist Exactly. Reminds of the (in)famous image of the blast door to an ICBM silo: theloosenukes.blogspot.com/2013/10/pizza-delivery-blamed-for-nuclear.html If you want to destroy a city inside 30 minutes there's currently only one tool for the job.
I would love to see all nuclear weapons gone, and think you make some very valid arguments. A thought I cant help but have is that even if a country did get rid of its nuclear weapons, who would believe them. Would any other country be willing to take the risk that they didn't still have one or two in secret? I mean matters of national security are surely never fully disclosed. So perhaps knowing a country once had them might be just as much a deterrent as knowing that they still have them.
"How does it benefit you to respond in kind?" The point is that another nation would not attack because they would know that we *could* respond in kind. Personally I think we should reduce the stock pile of nuclear weapons, but still keep SOME. I agree that we need to keep a nuclear deterrent, but i believe the amount we have is unnecessarily expensive overkill. I think we need to cut back on the spending. Say a third of the nuclear weapons we have (roughly 60). Because 60 will do the job of deterring a nation just as much as 200 would.
I remember hearing a BBC story about Letters of Last Resort. That might make an interesting topic for a future video. It seems like a utility vs. duty argument, but it provides a context for those kinds of arguments. This is more about the economic argument and its benefits. Dismantling the Trident program might have limited effects on nuclear deterrence so long as the UK remained allies with either the US or Russia. Getting rid of the program might reduce the expense to UK tax payers, but the argument would be different if the cost were passed on to someone else. This concern matters less for nukes, but it might have an impact for conventional weapons systems and military units. There might be little cost-passing regarding Trident, but weighing costs and benefits should consider when someone passes the costs to others.
I think the greatest film to demonstrate the idea of deterrents is one many know and that is 'Dr Strangelove or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' which shows what would happen if someone was actually insane enough to launch a nuclear attack which is both realistic but also funny as hell! Stanley, thank you so much XD
Thanks for doing a video on this Olly, trident is something i really struggle with as an issues so am interesting to see what comes out of the comments on this one! Doesn't the fact that there is uncertainty over whether we would use the weapon or not, mean that it is truly a deterrent? It is prior to 'kaboom' using their nuclear weapon that the deterrent has its greatest impact? Also i'd argue that the uncertainty of the political climate is what makes people support this. Let me give a situation and see if it holds. Take Russia, i'll use a real example because one of your main criticisms was undefined examples, say they got into conflict with Europe and were in a position to threaten the use of their nuclear weapon on a european country to assert their tactical dominance. If we did have a nuclear weapon, they would have to be 100% certain that we would not use it in retaliation to fight back in the context of Europe vs Russia. In this situation with the stakes so high would it even be possible to actually bluff the use of a nuclear weapon without a nuclear weapon? A vastly oversimplified example i'm sure, personally i feel it would be great to move towards disarmament and perhaps even if the risks above are justified the world peace motive outweighs them, i just would want to be sure of the main arguments against that?
Would NATO attack Libya if they had a proper nuclear program? I don't think so, and that's why I think UK should keep it nukes. You never know when you need them, and when they're gone, it's pretty hard to get them back. Look at Iran, they don't have any nukes and thus is not allowed to get any. I think nukes is a much better deterant to conventional war than to nuclear war. How many countries in the middle-east would be safe from western intervention if only they had a proper nuclear program?
sevret313 Who is likely to attack us though? France maybe, it's been a while since we had a war with them. We are a major military power, part of the largest military bloc in the world and closely allied to the global hegemon. The closest country that could potentially have the motivation and capability to attack us is Russia, which would literally have to go through the rest of Europe to get to us. The UK is not under threat at the moment, and I think the fact that the world's nuclear stockpile is so heavily concentrated in the hands of a small number of, predominantly Western countries, with a long history of Imperialism, probably does more harm than good in terms of promoting global peace and security.
Russia doesn't have the capacity to attack the UK. It doesn't have the blue water assets to do so. Only one state has the capacity to attack the UK - the US.
The question I'm thinking of in my head is this: assume I am the country that is nuking Britain. Let's say Latveria is bombing great Britain, I think they're the same size and distant enough that nuclear fallout from one won't affect the other. If I bomb once, what's to stop me from bombing a second time? Let's say that I bomb Britain with no repercussions, they just bend in and accept whatever I wanted them to in the first place, what's to stop me from threatening another country by bombing it, perhaps Norway, they have money and I want that, just for an example. This is how I see the argument for keeping nukes. If retaliatory fire would stop Latveria in its reign of terror, period, then it is worth having that option. You can trust America to have your back, but enough of Europe is relying enough on American military (it's not like you hear many European armies doing anything remarkable on the news) that Europe itself has to at least have some teeth in the international conversation of what happens when people are being terrible.
Micah Drake You're very unlikely to send multiple waves of missiles. The point of the weapon is to wipe out as much of the opponent and infrastructure as you can. Sending all your bombs in one shot will grant you not only the element of surprise, but it would greatly increase the chances of you wiping out your opponent's strategic resources. (Like Pearl Harbor), if they had sent waves of planes days apart, we would have been ready for the second wave. Luckily today, there's simply no good reason to want to wipe your opponent off the map, you won't get their resources, their land, their people, nothing. We're living in a world economy, and it's not a zero sum game.
Eugene S indeed, that's what chemical warfare is so handy, the people are gone, admittedly in one of the least humane ways imaginable, and all the inorganic stuff is unharmed.
A good analogy here is being one of those people who stocks up on crazy amounts of guns because one day the government might come after them for some reason, or even worse, decide to take his guns! They;re planning for such a batshit crazy scenario that it never occured to them to even ask if it makes any sense, or what would actually happen if their scenario played out in real life. How far do they think they can get with 500 guns when there's a swat team at their door, or a sniper on the hill? Weapons are just an extension of our need to feel powerful, because of that we often forget to ask if that power is of any use. Carrying a concealed gun on yourself for the purpose of "protection" will almost never offer any protection to you, and some of the times will just end up putting you in a situation where you might be forced to end a life. Just get robbed, give them your money and let the police deal with it. Revenge is never a reasonable reason for murder.
On the one hand Multlareralism, whereby two nuclear states negotiate terms and reduce their respective nuclear stock piles in exchange for the agreement that the opposing side will act in good faith and reduce their's has worked. This occurred at the end of the Cold War. Recently the Ukrain decided to unilaterally disarm itself of nuclear weapons, they renounced their previous status and returned these weapons to the Russian Federation, on the basis that they would be assured of their territorial integrity. However, despite this the Ukraine was invaded. Need I say more?
Honestly, while looking at the manifestos of different parties during RE, Trident was something that stood out, mainly because of the different opinions that were to be had about it. Personally I disagree with the owning of nuclear weapons, but could it be better to just possibly decrease the amount we have instead of scrapping them all together? It would mean they wouldn’t cost as much, but if there ever was a threat we would have them as a standby, though hopefully they would be our last resort. In terms of the amount of conversation I’ve had about different solutions for it, this is really much like wanting to leave Europe.
When it came out that US nuke codes were stored on 8 1/4-inch floppy disks that have probably degraded quite a bit, I saw "it's a bluff" everywhere. So, either we don't do a good job of bluffing, or people assume poor decision-making is unlikely.
Retaliation is more than just an act of revenge though. By launching a counter strike, you prove that you are indeed willing to launch a counter strike, making future bluffs more believable. You cannot win poker through mere bluffs. You have to actually hold cards that the other players are afraid of and play them from time to time. If retaliation does not occur, the enemies will not fear attacking again, and 3rd parties who were afraid before of retaliation are no longer afraid of retaliation. They know that they can basically just bomb you out of existence and you won't fight back. If retaliation does occur, then the enemy has 2 options: 1) Realize you weren't bluffing and stop attacking for fear that even those in the bunkers will be killed. This also puts those bunker people in really bad standing for the people who are now pissed that a nuke got dropped on them and their families because of the attack. 2) Re-retaliate, which will lead to both sides being destroyed. However, this line won't be followed if the people holding the button desire to survive over retaliate, which they probably do.
Just had such a huge “aha” moment because of this video. Like, to the point where as soon as I got it I just thought “crap, I can’t believe I never thought of that.” I’ve always thought of mutually assured destruction as an inevitability caused by the existence of nuclear weapons, but I’m seriously rethinking that notion.
I'm so happy that someone actually did a video about the defensive use of nuclear weapons. People rampage about the internet talking about how horrible any country that would even want nukes supposedly is. No one even acknowledges that most countries just want to be secure. This may or may not be a good argument. But it is, or at least should be, impossible to deny their role as a defensive weapon system. No country with nuclear weapons has ever been successfully invaded by a foreign power. Most haven't even had anyone try (I can only think of Israel feel free to inform me otherwise). Governments aren't trying to run headlong into the apocalypse. Most of them just want their people and their way of life to be safe. Sure, you can argue that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire them and he could have used them aggressively, but what example other than the US in WWII d you have? None. And even the US started the program because they knew the Nazis wanted to do it first. That said I think he profoundly misunderstands the idea of nuclear deterrence. It's not bluff. Governments really would nuke other countries is response. It's the very reality of the threat that is important. Bluffing is when you really can't win, or even strike back. All the opponent has to do is realize you are bluffing and then attack. The more often you bluff, the more likely you are to have someone call you're bluff. If you really intend to flatten a country, destroy its major cities and military resources and cripple its economic capacity to the point where everyone who survives the blasts will starve without foreign aid, you are not bluffing. That is the exact opposite of bluffing.
That's a nice rant you've got there. I'm not entirely sure what it actually has to do with the point I made. I specifically stated that I wasn't making an actual claim that the nukes were making the countries that have them safer. I said that it's unfair to ignore that their intentions are often defensive.
I generally agree with everything you said. I'm Canadian and I would strongly oppose any proposal to develop a nuclear arsenal here. But the scenario that I think could justify nukes is something along the lines of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Say Russia were to move an army into a NATO member, why wouldn't NATO respond by nuking the bulk of that army or the nearest supply point for that army. That would be an extreme measure but it seems like an option that could reasonably be put on the table to counter a land invasion.
I'm skeptical about the line or argument that Little Boy and Fat Man saved more lives than it killed in the Pacific theater of WWII. If I'm not mistaken, the military high command of Japan were prepared to keep on fighting despite the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was the ceremonial emperor who defied the generals' commands and surrendered to the Allies. If it wasn't for that emperor, the war would have still continued, despite the already massive death and injury count.
I'd argue that the scenario described where the bomb has gone off already, the weapon is useless (unless you go for total annihilation of the attacker, and even then, usefulness is debatable), and agree with you there (for the petty revenge), but that's because the function of the bomb would be basically indistinguishable from a retaliation war with conventional weapons. Furthermore, if a bomb did go off as described, war would ensue immediately, and in a conventional war scenario there are more important targets than the civilian population for a nuclear strike (so I doubt that would be the first target). The actual use in the years after WW2 was deterrence, I'd say it still works; there is need for massive stash of them, but just enough (minimum for a tactical or strategical response/ complete wipe of the potential attacker) to make another government wary, should conventional war begin to escalate (cough, Putin, unconvincing cough). Also, as in the example of the Korean war, use of the nuclear option is discouraged when allies of the receiving end of the nuclear stick have nuclear capability (Russia in this scenario), thus reducing the likelihood of use in the first place. Global disarmament would be nice, but as soon as somebody retains the capability to fabricate, or hides away some, the arms race begins anew, as no-one would allow a potential adversary to have such advantage (and trust is dangerous in this case). To me, the best option is not complete disarmament, just severe reduction of the nuclear armament, with the minimum caveat as described above. your thoughts on this arrangement?
It's a common mistake but major cities wouldn't actually be the primary targets of a nuclear attacks. They will mostly likely be secondary targets and it will be the industrial areas of the cities. The primary targets would be military airbases, radar stations and ports like Liverpool and Hull. They would be the main targets because the vast majority of nuclear weapons for the Uk are carried by Submarines and Aircraft.
I can't believe I've never heard this argument before regarding nuclear disarmament. It seems so simple yet I've just never heard anyone argue this point of 'why retaliate' and I almost feel like it was never even an option, like that I had just always been taught 'oh well we have them because if they attack us we'll attack back so they wont attack us' and it just always seemed logical but this is even better and more logical, if we are not going to use them in any case except in a retaliation attack then is a retaliation attack worth having them for? Surely we could retaliate with non nuclear weapons and cause just as much damage or even better use weapons to target certain structures instead of just glassing the entire area, IF we would even retaliate which again just seems petty especially if we wont even know if we get the people behind the attack. The only reason I could think of to retaliate would be to stop a future attack but a retaliation doesn't prevent that nor does it require nuclear weapons so that isn't a very good argument for keeping them. Short of that I can think of no other reasons for keeping nuclear weapons and honestly I can't believe I've never had this thought before. I had always been on the fence about nuclear weapons because they seem so grossly morally wrong, if killing is morally wrong, and these are designed for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people then they are clearly wrong, but I was always on the side of 'they're a necessity' for use as a deterrent but that's not actually the case is it? There are other ways to deter countries from attack by non nuclear means and the cost and risks involved with nuclear weapons makes it a pretty logical decision to get rid of them completely IMO. The fear people may have though is that they really do protect us from potential threats and if we just had none we would leave ourselves vulnerable but we are just as vulnerable with or without nuclear weapons in fact one could argue we are at more risk by keeping them around. I know it shouldn't happen because the nuclear weapons aren't sitting around primed and armed but I had always pictured a domino scenario if we were attacked it would set of our own nuclear weapons that would just detonate all across the country in silos wherever they are. Of course as I said that couldn't happen because the nuclear weapons are not stored in a way that they can detonate (as far as I know...) but it makes you think. What if our systems were hacked and all the stored nuclear warheads were programmed to arm themselves and detonate in their silos? Again I assume we have a system in place to prevent all of that but if we had no nuclear weapons at all then the chances of these things happening drop to 0 entirely and there are actual possible risks to keeping nuclear weapons (as mentioned in the video) so the risk is greater having them than not having them.
This seems to require backing up a bit, to a discussion of justifications for the use of violence in general - and whether the nuclear option represents a different enough sort-of-thing-in-kind to distinguish it from other forms of violence.
I still think that you have not properly thought through the deterrent idea. Look at it from the point of view of a potential aggressor with nuclear capabilities. If we do have nukes then their is always the chance we could retaliate in kind. If we do not then there is only less immediate less impactful methods of retaliation. So a potential aggressor is less likely to initiate nuclear violence whilst we have them. This is all true regardless whether or not we intend to use them and that choice to retaliate or not is one that needs to be made after we have been nuked not before.
4:20 How do you know that Britain isn't bluffing with its nukes? As you said, the country's leadership would have to convince everyone that they were ready to use them, so we don't really know if they're bluffing or not. We also don't know if the nukes are even real. A successful bluff would require convincing everyone that they're real, and part of that would also require reporting realistically high production and maintenance costs.
1.) Unknown Enemy: One day we are attacked by an unknown force. Nuclear weapons are useful due to crossing a "Godzilla Threshold." (imminent asteroid impact, super-bio-weapon release, A.I. hostile, Von Neumann swarm, against invading army, etc. Totally imaginable.) 2.) Total War: In a total war there are the solders shooting guns and the solders making guns. No civilians. (except young children, elderly, pacifists, diplomats,...by drone strike standards: acceptable [sarcasm.]) 3.) Guilt Grows: People control government and army; guilt is multiplied, not diluted, thus they are guilty. Hold a trial, and carry out the sentence. [sarcasm] 4.) Military Use: Hit a military stronghold, not a city. We can use (smaller) nukes on military targets, like naval groupings. 5.) Status Symbol: Having nukes means a country is rich and strong enough to build, maintain, and secure them. It means the country believes it can keep them secure and that is no bluff. This allows for widespread use of nuclear technology without fear that they will use the by products to make a bomb (because they already have several.) Losing that status implies weakness and 'invites' challenge or divestment. (Not really true in Britain's case.) 6.) Other Weapons: There are some weapons that are worse than (or similar to) nukes. Bio-weapons, cluster munitions, defoliants, area denial chemical weapons, fuel air munitions, and some soft targets like dams, key ports, or industries can cause more deaths. Agree about use as a retaliation tool. It's not binary. Cut down without getting rid of all of the warheads. Idea: "How dead does it really need to be?"
I'm late to the party by a bit, but I wanted to bring up Black Swan moments. These are moments that we do not really foresee, but would have a large impact. Aside from this being a possibly good episode for you to consider (Black Swan Theory), the Black Swan moments where nuclear weapons are helpful or needed could have larger implications than Black Swan moments for your second Big Ben or Mecha-thatcher. This isn't really a pro or con comment on nuclear weapons, I just think it's another facet you could have covered, the impact of events for not having nuclear weapons when needed is likely larger than for your other examples.
Could you talk more about the idea of a completely impartial (or in this case nonpartisan) information distribution service? Is distributing information ever impartial or are all choices of what to include inherently based on your own/institutional persuasion?
After spending eight months doing coursework on Hiroshima/Nagasaki and after watching the films 'Threads', 'When the Wind Blows' and 'Barefoot Gen' I can firmly say that I believe no good can come from having nuclear weapons. Mass death and trauma, total destruction of infrastructure and society and a squalid existence cowering in what remains of your cupboard under the stairs. Even if you dislike another country, there's got to be better ways of dealing with your issues. Even though the Cold War has ended (although it's fired up slightly recently), the fact that nuclear weapons exist and still could be used terrifies me. Also that money could really be used for better things. I mean, we've got that £1,000,000,000,000 deficit, student tuition fees are sky high, the NHS is in crisis. The things we do use are going under because we're spending so much on the things we're not using. Where's the logic?
My worry about getting rid of trident isn't it's use but the human, existential response to it's potential use. There is something more comforting and secure about being in a strong position - or at the very least perceiving yourself as such. With no trident there is not as much perceived security. Building a pillow fort makes you feel safe but it won't protect you from a bullet. And nuclear weapons only represent one way in which we build such securities around ourselves. Making ourselves feel secure is important, whether or not we actually are. The illusion is more powerful and the reality. We lock our houses, knowing full well the windows are easily broken, we take out insurance knowing the likelihood of a payment is low. The question of whether it is 'moral' to do this is separate and comes after the existential question. Humans are experts in giving ourselves false or illusory aspects in order to make the world seem more hospitable to each of us in particular. Trident is one aspect of that. To get rid of trident therefore, a monumental shift in how we think of the relationship between security and nuclear weapons would need to be enacted. Call me Nietzchean, but how we think about the world is far more relevant than how it actually might be.
bruno But you make yourself a target having these weapons. Nuclear weapons are not a pillow fort, they're a gun in your home. If somebody were determined to break into your home, they'd need to shoot you in order to make sure you won't shoot them back. If you didn't have a gun, the person might just enter your home, take some things and leave without killing you.
Neither can I think of many reasons why Britain should keep Trident/Nuclear. But, playing devil's advocate, does the fact that we possess them, in large quantities, give us more clout on the international stage, to dictate the terms of treaties and free trade agreements? In effect, leading to indirect economic benefits.
***** Getting your way because you have the biggest gun and are crazy enough to use it technically works, but I think people are starting to wise up. You can earn more international respect by showing respect these days. Acting like a cowboy (Bush and Putin) is getting viewed more and more as childish penis measuring contests.
This is a tricky one. On a whole, disarming the nukes seems like the moral good. However, at the same time the concept of MAD sits on my mind as I think through the scenarios. We're posed with the thought experiment where we're the receiver of the nuclear missile, but I think upon the reverse. If military aggression is enough justification for the nuclear option, what remains to prevent or at least, dissuade the launching of the bomb? Only the morals of the person or people who have to make the decision for the launch. This is really the big issue keeping me from agreeing 100%. As far as I know - and please, inform me if there's something I'm unaware of - there isn't a defence system against nuclear weapons yet. I only know of two means of preventing nuclear destruction; M.A.D. as a interaction process, and the talked about Star Wars program where I think the plan was for lasers to detonate nuclear missiles in transit so that they would cause less harm but that program never established. The only other method to prevent Kaboom from firing the ICMB I can think of right now, if we didn't have a nuclear program as a M.A.D. deterrant, would be to avoid war altogether, or surrender before it escalated to a stage where nuclear weapons were considered. I would prefer to see disarment of nuclear weapons, but I couldn't agree to it while knowing that there was no way prevent its usage by other nations. If there were no military conflicts in the present or the foreseeable future, yes. If there was something like the Star Wars system to stop defend against nukes, yes. If the whole world, in one fell swoop, rid itself of the nuclear bomb forever, yes... And I feel that those things are not far away but until something has been actualised, I couldn't agree with disarment. I wish I could, or better yet, I wish I could convince myself that the moral virtue of the act of disarmment is worth the potential risk, but it just won't sit right with me. Worst thing about this whole argument is trying to come to terms with the fact that if I was in the chair and had to make the decision whether or not to launch nuclear weapons in response to Kaboom launching nuclear weapons at my country, I'd like to hope that I would be able to say yes - putting blood of innocents on my hands - to make good on the whole practice of M.A.D. This probably makes me a bad person to some degree, that I want to be able to launch nuclear weapons if faced with the choice, but if I consider not launching the nukes in reltaliation, then M.A.D. is thrown futher into doubt which might lead to other nations like Kaboom to launch their nukes. Perhaps by pushing the button, I maintain the concept of M.A.D. which prevents further launches, or helps inspire gloabl disarmment but I have no way of know what would happen. Even if it did happen, I'd probably die anyway and never be able to do anything about it. Ideally, I want a third solution like the Star Wars project to come about, to make all intercontinental missiles worthless so that they might all be disarmed simultaneously. That seems like the best solution to me.
"God bless us everyone We're a broken people living under loaded gun And it can't be outfought. It can't be outdone. It can't be outmatched. It can't be outrun."
1. WW2 nukes used aggressively also one of the elements in the arms race was to have a first strike capability 2. MAD is in the past the question is about a limited strike and that ups the game
I hope that there will be no cases of even threatening nuclear bombing and nuclear wars in ever distant future. But there is some difficulties about a nuclear disarmament. There was a point in a history when the only country that had a nuclear weapon was U.S.A. and their behaviour, at least in eyes of some people, was like "yeah, what you gonna do 'bout it? Deal with it!". The point is that the nuclear disarmament might be even too complicated thing to do in the distant future. But surely there is a hope.
Not so sure about this. The UK deterrent is capable of destroying an attacker's leadership, no matter how deeply bunkered in they are. Retaliation does not depend on killing non-combatant people in the attacker's country, even though may would be killed in a counter-force strike (aimed at the enemy's leadership and nuclear forces).
If you don't respond you send a message that you are the boy that will take it. Others will feel much safer in assuming that when they hit you too, you will still just take it, and they will be unharmed just like the first attacker was. That can make the original aggressor attack you even more, and can make like-minded observers to start attacking. If you respond you send a clear message that even if someone can make you bleed, you can make them bleed too. That's the deterrent part.
Mutuality assured destruction only prevents nuke attacks because it just that, an assurance. if a country didn't retaliate in kind then other countries would then know that its safe to nuke them again. Retaliation would also be solid proof that one country at least is serious about their threat of MAD and other countries would be less likely to attack them again. A retaliation nuke would prevent many more nukings in the future.
So... it is bad to be paranoid i guess. I live in the harsh district of my city and because of that i ALWAYS carry a knife with me (a victorinox). If someone wants to rob me i can just open my knife and say "sod off or i'll use this". Yes, it's paranoid, nobody robbed me yet, but it doesn't mean nobody won't rob me. (and i'm aware that even if i threat back there is a chance the guy won't stop) Same goes to nukes. The difference is that "nations' little knife" hurts more people.
"Other countries of the world including ones who are under much graver military threats than us manage just fine without them" Do you think Ukraine would be being invaded if it still had it's nukes? Seems like one of those unknown reasons that we couldn't have predicted 10 years ago.
I think that question misconstrues the source of Russia's military aggression. Putin might not invade a nuclear state but there are plenty of non-nuclear states that he also might not invade for different reasons.
It was well known and its in the Whitehall papers I think Winston played hell when he found out and told that little piano playing president so when he met him
Manufacturing new SSBN's is not in violation of the NPT, we're not building new weapons, we're not even building new missiles, we're building naval vessels, just like Russia is, however they're also developing new missile systems and actual explosives.
It is a simple argument - if a nation favours non-proliferation then nuclear disarmament is imperative. In the scenario where a nuclear attack takes place, will retaliation by launching nuclear missiles help to support the country's defences against a subsequent attack? There is no reason to assume so, in fact there is just as much reason to think that nucear attacks could continue until one of the two countries would exhaust its arsenal, which would be devastating. So it can be argued that it may be in the interests of the country that has been attacked to not use nuclear weapons.
Why react to any action then? That's literally what you're saying. Don't react if somebody hurts you, steals from you, etc. Maybe because everyone knows if you don't react, they will keep on doing it because there are no repercussions.
Possessing nukes may make your country even more vulnerable though. I think a great solution could be if Britain piggybacked off of other nations nukes, USA for instance. So then you'd have a system where if Britain, as well as a few other countries, was nuked a different country would respond. Therefore it would make Britain less likely to be nuked because other countries are the ones that would respond and actually be dangerous, not it. I don't see why a country would nuke a non nuke country when they knew that another country, which they could decide to nuke instead, would retaliate for them.
You say that there would be no point in retaliating to a nuclear attack once it has happened and I agree with you, but that's not what "deterrent" means. The idea is to decrease the chance that someone will attack you in the first place. If you set up the system so that attacking you with nukes is very dangerous for the attacker then you will be less likely to be attacked. The question here is not "having been attacked what would you do?" it is "if we are less likely to be attacked if we would retaliate, does this reduced chance of a humanitarian disaster compensate for the increased scale of the disaster if it occurs" i.e. if the deterrent would make us four times likely to be attacked, but result in twice as many civilian deaths if we were then we have halved the likely number of deaths. Of course, if you choose the deterrent as the better option, and you judge a bluff to be unlikely to work, then you must deliberately put a system or person in charge of the response that will definitely respond with a counterattack. If a bluff would work, but people might forget it was actually a bluff, then you have lost nothing, only reduced the chance that the counterattack will occur, without increasing the chance of being attacked in the first place.
A reprisal strike prevents the aggressor from being able to muster the power to invade you after their own strike. They can’t take advantage of being the aggressor if their own country is falling apart.
One of the many issues with the removal of nuclear weapons can be summed up in one word: reliance. Look, let's say England gets rid of its nuclear weapons. If a situation comes up requiring nuclear weapons or a need to respond to nuclear attacks, Britain must look to America or France or Germany to get a response. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Not entirely, but foreign policy moves very fast, as we saw with the invasion of Crimea by rebel forces. While nuclear weapons do not make a country stable, they allow more or less for a country to be self-reliant, at least in situations dealing with the nuclear capabilities of other nations.
I live in a town where BAE systems are the biggest employer. Without Trident we would be left as a ghost town. I am completely opposed to nuclear weapons from a moral perspective, but practically I am torn because of the effect disarmament would have on the people who live here. It's a culture and it has been for over a hundred years.. many people rely on it as a source of income. I would be interested to here views on this.
I know it's weird to leave a comment like this on an old video, but does anyone know if the clip of the countdown in the opening is the source of the sample that begins The The's classic song "I've been Waiting for Tomorrow All of My Life"
As a close follower of both Military Theory and History - I only have one bone to pick with your argument good sir - more of an editorial one, really. You mentioned a 3.3 MT bomb going off in London and called that a medium sized bomb. Historically, you'd be right - but currently not so much. After a few different disarmament rounds here in the United States, the largest yield warhead remaining in our active or near active stockpile is 475 KT. Russia is about on par with only .5 megaton range weapons available to it currently. For this current discussion on the UK's nuclear weapons a 3.3 MT warhead would be beyond gigantic compared to the available warheads of Russia and the US. I believe Von Clausewitz was on to something when he described the end goal of total war - whatever it takes you render your enemy incapable of continued belligerence - since WWII we have all been lucky not to see such a war, but I half suspect such ebbs and flows are pseudo-regular and that another world-burning conflagration is only a matter of time. Whether or not nuclear warheads are available the body count will remain atrocious.
In the MAD game, the point of nuclear retaliation is to destroy the enemies infrastructure so that the following military campaign will meet less capable resistance when it comes time to roll over the enemy border. Even in a full on nuclear exchange at the peak of the nuclear stockpiles in 1983 would've taken a decade to kill half the population of Earth. Which still leaves plenty of people in uniform, and plenty of continuance of governance plans in place for the conventional finish of the nuclear-started war, with much less destructive power available today, the conventional finish to said nuclear started war will be much more brutal with more survivors and infrastructure left to fight it. I'd like to ramble on about methods of thermonuclear weapon manufacture than would create fall-out free super weapons (The Russian Tzar Bomba was designed for a 100 MT blast, then tested at half that yield with practically no fallout whatsoever - no joke) - or that Enhanced Neutron Radiation Bombs leave no fallout or significant blast damage, merely a hideously powerful pulse of ultra-deadly neutron radiation . . . But It seems weird to add Greenpeace acceptable thermonuclear weapons to an already strained point . . .
Bj Hamblin I chose 3.3 because that was what China used to have - by the standards of those that were available for running the simulation it was a medium. But yeah, I take your point.
Philosophy Tube And I yours good sir - I love your channel and have eagerly devoured each video of yours for a while. I would submit that nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons available (until anti-hydrogen production ramps up, at least) yet their destructive power is not as apocalyptic as reported or believed. Even though a full strategic nuclear exchange would be on par with a relatively instantaneous Black Plague of Death in it's effects - Europe survived that disaster, as mankind would no doubt survive a full nuclear exchange and it's resulting total war of conventional weapons. And to stick to your main point, even if the nuclear weapons were all launched into the sun tomorrow - how much worse would WWIII's conventional strategic firebombings be than a few well placed thermonuclear warheads?
I don't know about UK, I'm an Indian and I know how important our Nukes for us (we're sandwiched between Pakistan and China duh!!). Most of our foreign policy has been a success bcz of our Nukes. Of course with a great track record as a responsible Possessor... Big fives thought only they've the moral right to keep Nukes bcz only their citizens lives matter unlike other country's only they need to deter. But once there is an existence of even a single Nuclear power the entire world feels unsafe (at least after the real demonstration US did on Japan in WW2) and every country needs to have that deterrent to save their sovereign power. N-Korea would have been Vietnam/Afghan hadn't it had Nuclear power. . If it needs to be disarmed, it should be GLOBAL! Not unlike only some elite will posses it, as if they're the saviors of the world. The world knows from all the ways who messed and are still messing with the world...
I find that people often downplay the importance of roles. For instance, I'm a civilian in a laughable nation, in the event of a war there is no security for me either way. The philosopher must most frequently appeal to man's best nature, because that's his predominant vocation. It would be remiss of a statesman, however, to remove the works of the likes of Hobbes or Machiavelli from his nightstand. If you assume you need nuclear weapons, and then it turns out you don't, there's no harm. Conversely, if you assume you don't need them, and it turns out you do, while the philosopher is left to ponder just how badly he once again overestimated human beings, what is the statesman to do? For him, to err on the side of caution means to always assume the worst. Britain is what it is today exclusively because it won crucial battles at crucial times. Until we rethink the very concept of Nation, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss military power as a deterrent, especially not in a statesman's shoes, and most definitely not if I were a Brit, with a tendency to feel at home in the homes of others, and a unique fondness for sticking flags in everything that stands still long enough...
I think there’s an argument for Nuclear deterrent there goes beyond hostile countries launching nukes at your country. For example imagine their are too countries that are very antagonist too each other and are basically enemies. Lets consider some options. If both of them have nuclear weapons they will avoid direct antagonistic conflict as much as possible because of M.A.D. Now conflict will still occur between the two nations but in an indirect way. If neither of them have nuclear weapons then perhaps there will be more direct conflict, but it won’t be that deadly. But if only one of the two has nuclear weapons, then the other is in an incredibly problematic situation. Because the nuclear-equipped nation now has the power to destroy the other one instantly and there’s nothing that nation can do, so the nuclear one will be able to do essentially whatever it wants to the other. Even though I think this valid, I would still say that nuclear disarmament is the right choice even if it happens one at a time. But its something that can’t be overlooked.
I am no militarist, but there certainly are clearly rational strategic reasons for statesmen to maintain their nuclear arsenals. There are at least two reasons to retaliate with nuclear force should Kaboom nuke London. 1) It would to some important extent hinder Kaboom's ability to continue launching nuclear weapons at Britain; and 2) nuclear retaliation would demonstrate to other potentially aggressive states that using nuclear weapons against the UK is a bad idea. These two reasons to retaliate also reinfoce the original veneer of deterrence, because statemen are then generally aware of the rational strategic utility of retaliating. Thus, the logic of retaliation is not based vengeance, as you suggest, it is informed by perfectly rational cost-benefit analysis and a desire to avoid further nuclear attack...Just to problematize things further: do you think the cold war would have remained 'cold' if nuclear weapons hadn't existed? Some might say the existence of nuclear weapons in this way avoided the cold war from turning into WWIII. Some might even say nuclear weapons are to some extent responsible for humankind, as a whole, enjoying an unusually peaceful historical period since the end of WWII...
"You'd never know what kind of sinister plans might be Putin - I mean put in - to place."
fucking gold man
somewony Hee hee, I was proud with that one.
I also liked how Kaboom was between Iraq and A Hard Place
This comment aged like fine wine.
I am from the future, putin has gone nuts!!!!, help! help! help!
Face it, if you Brits ditched all the nukes and built a 50 foot tall Margaret Thatcher robot, you'd have your entire Empire back within a month without firing a shot... and Putin would soil his trousers.
lol Iron Maggie. With Bruce Dickinson on vocals xD
oh hush, "Deep Trashtray".
@@alexscriabin how original
Disclaimer: I don't like nukes, and I want to see global disarmament.
I don't think you explained the idea of deterrence adequately. It's not simply about revenge. It's about making the cost of attack so high that no sane country would go through with it in the first place. It's true that no country with nukes has ever been attacked.
I'm going to put the example of North Korea to you. Kim Jong Un and his military advisers believe that the country and regime are under existential threat of invasion from South Korea and the US. Economic sanctions have made it very difficult for them to keep their conventional military and training up to date and sufficient to deter an attack. Also consider that in the past, the USA has threatened to use nuclear weapons on NK in the event of war. Whether or not they actually would is irrelevant. Kimmy believes this to be the case. He believes nukes are the only viable way left for him to deter an attack. I'm not sure I'd disagree in his place. The North Koreans would point to the example of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. He gave up his nuclear programme in exchange for concessions from the West, only to have his country bombed and his throat slit 10 years later. Would Libya be a chaotic Jihadi hotbed today if it had a viable nuclear deterrent?
I'm of the opinion that if any country has nukes, nations which feel threatened by that country have the right to develop a deterrent. Disarmament has to be an all or nothing thing. So long as the big countries like the USA insist on having them, we can't have a viable disarmament regime. In this line of thinking, I'm in favour of China's policy of "minimum deterrence".
Yes, the UK could set an example, and I don't think it would be under a greater threat if it did, but I can understand the people who feel differently.
The argument about cost isn't valid. Look up Modern Monetary Theory. It posits that the current neoliberal narrative of debt and deficit in government budgets is a completely artificial situation for a country which controls its own money supply. The UK finance minister could go to the bank of England and have it write a cheque to write off the budget deficit tomorrow if he wanted to. Whether a country can afford nukes or not is only a matter of resources and technical expertise. The UK could easily have nukes and fund healthcare, education, and social welfare.
I'd say that the solution isn't to get rid of nukes, but rather global military disarmament. If all nations have nukes, but no troops, then no nation has a reason to use them. At that point, we could then have nuclear disarmament.
This is 3 years old and i agree with alot of the stuff you said, I do wanna mention though that India and Pakistan actually did attack each other and they are both nuclear powers. Consensus in IR seems to be that attacks against nuclear powers tend to be smaller, like poking someone with a needle, in the hope that the attack is small enough to *not* trigger a nuclear response. And that's playing with matches, so really MAD is not all that world peacy thing it's cracked up to be.
Totally agree that is has to be a international cooperation thing, with treatises and everything.
You can't print money willy-nilly, you get Argentina rates of inflation.
@@crackedZombie1876 India did not attack, it was Pakistan who stroke every time and got it's ass kicked.
You can't think of a reason for a backup Scotland? TWO Edinburghs!
RealCoolCowboy Hah, fair call.
A backup Scotland would make perfect sense, since UK is about to lose the original one. And a giant Mecha-Tatcher would awesome, send that into the war against ISIS and you're pretty much set for victory.
But then again... two Glasgows
"how does it benefit you to respond in kind?"
its a loaded question... this is purely done in spite, because its loaded answer is, "it doesn't"
If the USA or Russia nukes you, it doesn't. But if North Korea sends their first nuke to London, a strike back at them could destroy their capability to build and launch more nukes.
I think you are more or less missing the main point of having nuclear weapons. The question does not really evolve around wether one should respond or not. It is about avoiding the situation in the first place by letting enemies know that you are able to respond and destroy them IF they attack you. This, of course, goes both ways.
Anyway, great video as always :-) I am not completly sure what I think om the topic myself, so videos like this are very helpful for me :-)
(English is not my first language, but I hope my point got across)
I think that having nuclear weapons in the backhand is one of the main reasons why nations who have them are willing to make quite aggressive world politics, since it gives them a feeling of safety. It is no surprise that that the nations with such weapons are mostly the nations that have some kind of veto power in the UN, they basically keep the entire world hostage, and so without that the UK would lose some leverage they currently have. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should keep the weapons, but they are a political tool and that goes far beyond just having the option to retaliate.
Drudenfusz That's like negotiating with your gun on the table. Politics just don't work that way, everybody sees you as a douche for flexing your muscles, and beating your chest.
Eugene S I wasn't saying that this is good or in any other way justifiable, but it is nevertheless a policy most of the powers with nuclear weapons at their disposal are going for. So, regardless what you and I might think of it, it seems to be work for them and thus prove that politics sadly work that way.
Drudenfusz Can you present an example? I believe it did work that way recently, but not so much today. An example is the US vs Russia over Ukraine thing. In the past, we would have rattled our sabers at each other, pointed missiles at each other and dedicated more money on military spending. Today, we impose sanctions, and Russia almost falls apart overnight without a single threatening gesture. Economies and people are directly tied to eachother's success today, so it benefits nobody to wage war any more.
Eugene S I agree with you that economics is more important these days, but only in cases of negotioation, if it comes to invading another country with your military (and lets face it that is what the USA did in Iraq and Afganistan and so on or what you mention Russia is doing with the Ukraine), then having these weapons make most nations think twice in getting military involved in this but only go for some sanctions. I mean Look at cuba, what did that nation do to the USA? And do you think that other nations would bow to the USA and their sactions against cuba if they wouldn't have that military power? Again, I am not defending having such weapons, I am just saying they still have a real impact in politics.
Drudenfusz It's hard to tell how big the impact is on politics, but remember that the rest of the world doesn't bow down to the US because they have nukes, it's because they're the economic superpower of the world. If you don't play by the US's rules, you don't get ahead. I guess the question would be how much extra political power does India/Pakistan/Israel have because of their weapons? Personally, I don't believe it's a significant gain for them, and maybe even negative.... not sure on those, chime in.
Cuba was made an example of by the US to show the rest of the world this is what happens if you side with the enemy. Yes, it was absolutely dumb, but during a cold war, you have to pretend to be a bit crazy so your opponent thinks you might actually do it.
The best reason for the MAD plan I can think of is that, after the enemy nukes you, and leaves you 2 million people less then you once were, if you cant do the same to them, then you'll be spending all of your resources recovering, while they can attack you more directly as they please.
If you play any real time strategy games, a good analogy I can think for this is that using the nuke is the equivalent of destroying, lets just say, half of a player's economy. So when a player does this to you, not only have you lost half of your income, but you have to spend your built up and incoming resources repairing that hole in your economy best you can, leaving the enemy miles ahead of you. But if you can do that back to your enemy, it leaves you both in the vulnerable recover position (So just pray that there isnt an extra, un-nuked enemy to come and ruin your day)
I'm not sure if that's a good argument by any means, but it's the best justification I can think of.
In America, you'd be surprised how often "we should just use nukes" is thrown around as a solution to every problem in the middle east or east Asia (weirdly though, it's never brought up as a solution to problems in Europe or the Americas. read into that what you will). Even though most of the time people are joking when they say that, many Americans really do like the idea of nukes because it's a nice "clean and easy" solution to potentially any complicated problem
Israel and Palestine? Nuke em
China owns too much of our debt? nuke em
In many ways, that's our justification for nuking japan in world war 2: the situation would have been really long and complicated, and just in general hard to deal with, so nuking them was probably more efficient (by the way, I'm not saying that logic is wrong-- by most accounts from military experts who know more about this than me a land invasion of japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides)
What I'm saying is that I feel in America Nuclear weapons are seen as uncomplicated and simple and that's why people like them so much. They're a way of taking nuanced issues and making them about as unnuanced as you can get.
Austin LaBonty Their simplicity is a part of their appeal. Anyone who sees a few nuclear explosions can understand the world-ending destruction that the use of nuclear weapons makes possible. They are essentially the ultimate trump card. Counter-intuitively, I think this casual talk about the use of nuclear weapons is actually to everyone's benefit. Think of it like a never-ending propaganda campaign to assure the world at large that the US is willing to use nukes AGAIN. So don't get too out of line. I think nuclear weapons keep alive the specter of entire countries being destroyed all at once. Until we live in a utopian world of abundance, I think such a specter works in favor of maintaining mostly-peace between the most powerful nations. That said, we should work towards reducing stockpiles and it's less clear Britain needs any -- they could just sign a treaty with another nuclear state to defend them.
Except the entire specter of mutually assured destruction is the ultimate logical extreme of an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. If we use nukes, even if only on our enemies, the fallout will hurt us all. There's no point to having nukes because using them cannot be an option.
Austin LaBonty There have been over 2,000 nuclear explosions to date, and we're all still here with longer average lifespans than ever. Fallout is a real problem, but it's not so bad that it will "hurt us all" -- that's hyperbole. As for eye for an eye, no: that's not the approach that has guided US policy in the past. It's far more extreme and effective: if one bomb drops on the US, the opposing country will be devastated until their war-making capability is eliminated. The US response to an attack would be vastly more impactful than the original attack. This is why nukes function as a deterrent. If it was just eye for an eye then more countries would probably have used them by now. They haven't used them because they know the response wouldn't just be an equal number of their citizens killed, it would be the end of the world, or at very least them getting bombed into the stone age.
BobWidlefish The difference is that those 2,000 nuke tests didn't take place over cities. A nuke in every major city in a country is a completely different ball game. Yes we would survive, and yes, earth would probably not even blink, but the toll of that many lives lost is not insignificant. And you wouldn't want to live in that country for a while afterwards.
Eugene S Yes, the cities that gets bombed (and the area around them for quite a distance) would be in bad shape for sure. But if Britain bombs Yemen (or whatever) that's not going to have much impact on Australia or the US. It's not necessarily the case that we all suffer. If the US and Russia kick off their cold war mutually assured destruction scenarios then that would have an effect that is not well localized....it would surely cause a nuclear winter, among other less than pleasant side effects for most the world. But as we saw in 1945 in Japan it is possible to have relatively localized impacts even with absolutely crude nuclear weapon prototypes.
7:48 actually that 50ft firebreathing margaret thatcher would 1:be awesome 2:be a great weapon that wouldn't have those many civilian casualties 3:could be used to scare off enemies because WHO WANTS TO FIGHT THAT STUFF!? and finally 4: because someone will make an attack on thatcher anime about it
Why should we keep them? Aliens!!! Aliens that why. What if we need to defend our selves from the Goa'uld?
Don't be ridiculous. We'd just go to antarctic Ancient chair instead.
nicholas jones Maybe the asgard could help too
Jacy Gouveia Smile Teal'c. Don't be so pessimistic.
i've read lots of -pulp- literature on the matter, we don't need nukes we have perfectly acceptable stds that can do just as much damage AND are relatively freely available
good question on the "would i retaliate with a nuclear strike." Yes. i would. It needs to be a precedent to assure any nation state that if it were to launch a nuke, then it would be 100 percent likely for a counter strike to occur. It would be horrible. but future generations would become safer from nukes if mutually assured destruction was enforced.
While I hold the same opinion as Olly, I think that "you would be just killing 2 million people more and not getting the people who pressed the button" makes it look much more simpler than it really is. I would say it's a strawman. Isn't that just what most war is about, anyways? Destruction fueled by political interests, _very frequently_ including massive civilian casualties, rarely resulting in the death of supposedly targeted political leaders?
The position that "it's just petty revenge" makes it look more easy to defend than it is. In reality, you need to defend that war itself is unjustifiable, and that's much harder.
BinaryHistory Hit the nail on the head. In fact, isn't it funny that assassinating political leaders is a war crime?
BinaryHistory Funnily enough Glover does attempt to outline what a just war is in the very same book. But I didn't have time to go into it, so fair cop.
Philosophy Tube The book sounds interesting, I will take a look at it.
BinaryHistory I had some thoughts regarding nuclear strikes and how similar they are to general warfare during the video. Let's compare the nuclear attack from a foreign power scenario with one involving a foreign invasion. The correct response is to push back the invasion and invade the attacking country yourself, but that's different from a retaliatory nuclear strike. A counter-invasion is retaliatory, but with the purpose of neutralizing the threat in order to protect your citizens and country from further violence. A retaliatory nuclear strike has no such strategic benefit since the threat won't necessarily be neutralized, as Ollie pointed out. The strike would only be an act of retribution in the styling of "an eye for an eye" punishment.
War is a destructive activity, the most destructive behavior humans engage in I think, but it isn't simply wanton destruction like a nuclear bombing. The fact that a war has strategic goals and interests (in this scenario related to defense rather than offense) makes the act more nuanced than just causing destruction and mayhem.
Dalton Tonga The massive destruction of a nuclear bomb can be used to fulfill strategic goals, like any other weapon. The damage could weaken a country, for example.
2:54 the whole point of mutualy assured destruction is that it never gets to that point. however i must admit it dosen't benifit you its not meant to
edit:
3:19 the idea of a future in which both sides lose is enough to prevent either from laumching the nukes in the first place
Absolutely. For some reason our leaders prefer to kowtow to the Americans, rather than seeing them as the potential threat they are. Our leadership has also made some alarming mistakes when dealing with the Chinese, and others on the world stage. Enough Americans voted for Donald Joffrey Pumpkinhead that they were able to dismiss 45's election rigging as the paranoid fantasy of 'butthurt Liberals.' This is frightening. They've also failed to impeach him. And he and the GOP have changed enough political paradigms that it may come down to all out destruction of the planet before the decade is over. We need to renew alliances with China. But more importantly, Canada needs Mother England now, as much as we've ever needed our long time allies. There's a narcissistic dictator at the helm of the US machine who's undoing every step the Americans have made toward fair and inclusive democracy in the last 100 years. It would not surprise me if he were to start undoing the legal mechanisms of the last 200 years, if he's able to cheat his way into a second term. And his influence threatens the entire world. *So yes. Please* keep your nukes. Keep your allies in the rest of the former British colonies safe from that megalomaniac.
This line of thinking misses the point entirely. MAD is a great idea, and Britain should keep her nukes. If Kaboom is about to attack London, knowing there will be NO retaliation, what stops them? They're already preparing to attack, so they clearly believe it's a good idea, and diplomatic relations are unlikely to resolve a situation so grave. The only thing that keeps Kaboom out of Britain is the fear of (at least) proportionate response. Also, consider the scenario in which Kaboom tells Britain "you'd better do X or we'll nuke you." If they have nukes and you've disarmed, you're in a bad place. The #1 rule of negotiation is ALWAYS negotiate from a position of strength. I'm an American, and from my side of the pond, the hug-a-bad-guy mentality seems to be pervasive in Britain (or at least very outspoken). What a shame. You were once great.
+Travis Sims The negotiation and debating manuals I've studied don't place huge emphasis on a position of strength, and even if they did nuclear power isn't the only strong position: economic interdependence and the potential sanctions of an international community are both good ones too. And all of that assumes that there even is a real-life counterpart of Kaboom in the first place.
Today happens to be the Labour leadership election, so it's funny that you mention 'Great' Britain. Britain used to be Great as in big, and it used to be Great as in 'Great and Terrible.' But I think it's yet to be Great as in *great*. Lots of people here think like you, that the country used to be great and we need to get back there. But I think the real greatest days of my country are still ahead of it.
Dunno, man. You didn't explore Brinkmanship, neither Cuba-Crises nor Reykjavik '86. Since Realpolitik is an infinite game, you have to bomb, if someone is calling your cards, otherwise it won't work again.
Now it's 2018 and the Chinese have tasted super sonic missiles, circumventing conventional defense systems. If they have an defense against US ICBMs, how does that play out - regarding Taiwan? .. and what ya gonna do when NATO calls?
I think it is like a status symbol, granted, it is an expensive one. It helps project an image of power, and that image may be worth more than the billions spent. Obviously the bombs aren't the sole reason that countries are seen as powerful. But every time a country starts atomic development we get a little nervous and are forced to take them seriously *cough north korea *cough
This was easily one of your most fascinating videos, Olly. Rock and roll, pal!
I have moral issues taking a life even in vengeance.
But this is because of my sense of empathy kicking in.
Interestingly though, the scenario you mentioned, with _one_ bomb going off in London is one where retaliating might actually be a reasonable thing to do. If the state that attacked the UK has more nukes, you backing up your threats with actual action might lead them to assume that sending more nukes your way would only cause you to incinerate more of their cities as well.
However, that's only one of the reasons why sending a test nuke and see what happens is such a blatantly stupid idea that it will never actually happen. Just saying that using the one-nuke example was actually kind of an odd choice.
I remember when you only had 2000 sub,now look how much this great channel has grown.you have helped develop a good moral compass,thank you
cole lolicato That's very sweet of you to say, and thanks: making sure I disclose who is commissioning stuff and so on is something I spend a lot of time working to get right. I'm glad you've stuck around since so early on :)
No worries
Oh please do renew Trident, a weak UK economy will make it cheaper for me to import UK products such as Coleman's mustard, Cheddar cheese and HP sauce to Austria.
This is the most wholesome argument for nuclear weapons I've ever seen.
You know, as an American born after the 50s, I've always taken the fact that nuclear weapons are important as a given. I've never considered the obvious problem with the MAD principle like the way you put it forward. That chilling silence after you said, "How would retaliating benefit you in any way whatsoever?" totally floored me.
That said, here's my cynical realist answer that undoes your entire argument: tribalism. Americans, British, whoever... they don't care about enemy civilians because they're not "us." "They" aren't anyone of value because they're not "us." Similarly, I'll throw in the "one death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistic," quote, too. Even if a huge amount of people died after a nuclear weapon was dropped, the government could spin it to the point where the layperson would say, "Well, I guess it was justified." I mean, how long did it take before people started questioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Yeah, logically the moral evil of nuclear weapons seems pretty cut-and-dry. But people aren't logical... they're so easily misled. So easily biased.
Andrew Weber I fear you may be right. But I'm also really glad that the channel helped you think about new stuff!
Well, the mutually assured destruction would mean that further threats will be neutralised, essentially acting as damage control. It is, fundamentally, prevention being better than cure, with regards to preserving the affected lives.
Nice one Ollie.
The "reason we can't think of" is a euphemism. It isn't a reason they "can't think of", they know what it is perfectly well. It's a reason they can't _tell us_. Which is why we can have no part in the discussion about weather or not our nation has nuclear weapons. Actually, I suspect that if we knew what it was, we would revolt against any government for even considering it, but equally important and equally hidden are the secret service reasons. These reasons need to exist, because there are equally strong reasons we don't know about which are held against us. These reasons are only effective if our enemies (which, in peace-time, we don't know who they will be either) do not know what they are. If civilians, and voters are allowed to openly debate these reasons, they are no longer the reasons, because open debate means our (as yet unknown) enemies already know them, and your surprise attack has failed before you've started it.
So, the reason we need nuclear weapons is because... "Godzilla is real!", or "Martians are real!", or "Zombies are real!", or "We need to shoot down stray asteroids" or... No, the real reason we need nuclear weapons is to remove large swathes of civilian populations. Large swathes of civilian populations who, for example, will not accept a form of government which is acceptable to you, or your people. Because people can only be governed if they allow themselves to be. *And* we need nuclear weapons because you're not allowed to know why we need them, unless you've already agreed that we *definitely* do need them, *and* can tell us why, *and* it's the same reason we already knew that we can't tell you.
BTW. I _don't_ agree with this, but it is the truth behind the argument, which is why it is *no* argument and can *never* be debated. We either demand a constitutional change to say that no government can ever maintain WMDs, or we accept that they _are_ going to maintain them, and we will pay for it, whatever we think about it. We _cannot_ *ask* them not to maintain it. We will have to *tell them*. I suspect we will need to tell them with considerable violent force, because otherwise they will insist that we protest against non-arguments as above. _"Guess what colour I'm thinking of, or I punch you on the nose."_
Question:
if a Deterrent is "not necessary" because it benefits nobody if used as is said they would, then are you telling me that all people whom have the ability to use said weapons as a deterrent wouldn't prefer to use them as first strike?
Britain keeps them around as a deterrent ... so how many countries do we know that intends to use it as a First strike?
if we know of any, wouldn't that therefor justify the non fake deterrent?
it may not benefit us to nuke the people whom nuked us, but wouldn't it be a benefit to all those whom actually fake their nuclear deterrent program? they wouldn't have to get involved, just protect themselves from the fallout while a potential enemy is wiped out for hoping that it was just a bluff.
it would then strengthen others bluffs. and potentially prevent a nuclear winter rather than cause one.
Hi Oli, Thanks for the video. I just had a few thoughts that I would like to share. Being very liberal in most other ways my views on nuclear weapons have always been a little embarrassing to me, in that I am from the UK a supporter of the Green party but for Trident's renewal. I would love to think otherwise but there are always a few doubts that I feel are unanswered when I am presented with the disarmament argument.
The first is the power to bluff. Like you, I agree that in the event that London (or any other UK city) was attacked by nuclear weapons then there would be little point executing millions of civilians from another state in retribution. This position, however, has not been taken by our preceding prime ministers. Which to me would leave even a hint of doubt in the would-be aggressor's eyes that there may be a chance that the UK would retaliate. With a nuclear weapon even a hint of doubt is large deterrent.
In regards to going full bluff and making the rockets out of foam tubes I have two things to say. Firstly, although I am not an expert on nuclear weapons engineering, I imagine it would be difficult to fake to such a degree you would save a huge amount of money. You would still need to produce the submarines capable of carrying nuclear devices for a period of time, you would still need the bases and you would still need to make the whole charade as genuine as possible all the while running the risk that your ploy may be discovered any render the deterrent useless.
The second point is, let's say that this policy is possible and the government had decided to play this bluff, what would the process now of renewing it look like? The same as if it were real, i.e. what it looks like now. They would need to project and, at least superficially, withdraw the imaginary costs for trident from the budget to convince foreign governments that we were actually building the rockets. Now, I don't believe this is what the government is doing but it is worth considering what that would look like.
Another point is that nuclear weapons are not only used against cities, they can be used tactically on the battlefield. What I mean to say here is not that nuclear weapons can be used exactly like conventional bombs but the can be used in a manner more similar to them. Giving up nuclear weapons would in my eyes at least, adversely affect the ability of the conventional armed forces as well.
The last thing I want to mention is that, although perhaps it is too much of a conjecture to say this, there have been no major wars between powerful countries since those countries got hold of nuclear weapons. This is not to say these wars can't happen but perhaps having raised the cost of war so much, maybe nuclear weapons play a bizarrely pacifying role in the world. I think of the Cold War and the possibility of armed conflict being avoided between the US and USSR for more the 50 years as well as any future standoff between Russia, China and the US as being examples were nuclear weapons may be being seen to play a peaceful role.
If I were going to critique my own argument though, it would be on the points of human mistake, malfunction and abduction of nuclear material by terrorists. As I find the probability of these issues difficult to quantify though, I also find them difficult to work sensible into my thinking.
I'm not British, so I can't really say what your government should be doing. But, I believe, in general, that acts of revenge and vengeance can be forgiven or at least understood - in the case of CIVILIANS. The government, however, is supposedly an institution/group of 'experts' in the area of politics and issues like these. They shouldn't be corrupted by strong emotions and hatred as a civilian understandably could. The government has a huge responsibility, in my opinion, to send out the right message to its people and to other nations: we are a people of peace and will only retaliate in self defense; we will not attack out of revenge where it will not benefit our people.
I feel that for any country to possess weaponry that WILL kill hundreds of civilians (who, unlike soldiers, would not have chosen to engage in combat at all!), is a huge ethical injustice. As this video stated, these weapons have next to no benefits, only destruction. In short, I think governments are supposed to be the 'mature' ones - unlike the average person, they are experts in theses areas and there decisions should be affected by reason and ethics, NOT emotion. This is why I think NO countries should possess nuclear weaponry - even though this is a highly idealised desire.
Thank you for this video it really helped me with my English essay
Nukes are pretty much obsolete due to our current extremely advanced and accurate missiles, bombs and drones. Unless you had to take out an entire complex whole all at one stroke they are too devastating. There are very few cases where they are tactically beneficial, for example, if there was a major port where the enemy was getting all their supplies in, or a major marshalling ground readying for an invasion.
dangerouslytalented While I essentially agree, the truth is there is still a strategic case to be made for having the capability of destroying a whole city (or country) at a time, at least as a deterrent. Plus, what if you ever wanted to turn a large area of desert into glass? Conventional weapons just aren't up to the task.
dangerouslytalented Yes, but even in those case, a few B2's with cluster bombs, some drones, and a crapload of cruise missiles would be able to do the same job for a TINY fraction of the cost. Without irradiating the earth and being vilified by the rest of the world.
HappyandAtheist Exactly. Reminds of the (in)famous image of the blast door to an ICBM silo:
theloosenukes.blogspot.com/2013/10/pizza-delivery-blamed-for-nuclear.html
If you want to destroy a city inside 30 minutes there's currently only one tool for the job.
The interesting thing is even the fear of reaching nuclear enrichment is apparent. Example: Iran and Saudi Arabia
I would love to see all nuclear weapons gone, and think you make some very valid arguments.
A thought I cant help but have is that even if a country did get rid of its nuclear weapons, who would believe them. Would any other country be willing to take the risk that they didn't still have one or two in secret? I mean matters of national security are surely never fully disclosed.
So perhaps knowing a country once had them might be just as much a deterrent as knowing that they still have them.
woah woah great point, i'm not sure how we can utilise this argument to further the disarmament agenda though...
"How does it benefit you to respond in kind?"
The point is that another nation would not attack because they would know that we *could* respond in kind.
Personally I think we should reduce the stock pile of nuclear weapons, but still keep SOME. I agree that we need to keep a nuclear deterrent, but i believe the amount we have is unnecessarily expensive overkill. I think we need to cut back on the spending. Say a third of the nuclear weapons we have (roughly 60). Because 60 will do the job of deterring a nation just as much as 200 would.
I remember hearing a BBC story about Letters of Last Resort. That might make an interesting topic for a future video. It seems like a utility vs. duty argument, but it provides a context for those kinds of arguments.
This is more about the economic argument and its benefits. Dismantling the Trident program might have limited effects on nuclear deterrence so long as the UK remained allies with either the US or Russia. Getting rid of the program might reduce the expense to UK tax payers, but the argument would be different if the cost were passed on to someone else. This concern matters less for nukes, but it might have an impact for conventional weapons systems and military units. There might be little cost-passing regarding Trident, but weighing costs and benefits should consider when someone passes the costs to others.
I think the greatest film to demonstrate the idea of deterrents is one many know and that is 'Dr Strangelove or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' which shows what would happen if someone was actually insane enough to launch a nuclear attack which is both realistic but also funny as hell! Stanley, thank you so much XD
Thanks for doing a video on this Olly, trident is something i really struggle with as an issues so am interesting to see what comes out of the comments on this one!
Doesn't the fact that there is uncertainty over whether we would use the weapon or not, mean that it is truly a deterrent? It is prior to 'kaboom' using their nuclear weapon that the deterrent has its greatest impact? Also i'd argue that the uncertainty of the political climate is what makes people support this. Let me give a situation and see if it holds. Take Russia, i'll use a real example because one of your main criticisms was undefined examples, say they got into conflict with Europe and were in a position to threaten the use of their nuclear weapon on a european country to assert their tactical dominance. If we did have a nuclear weapon, they would have to be 100% certain that we would not use it in retaliation to fight back in the context of Europe vs Russia. In this situation with the stakes so high would it even be possible to actually bluff the use of a nuclear weapon without a nuclear weapon? A vastly oversimplified example i'm sure, personally i feel it would be great to move towards disarmament and perhaps even if the risks above are justified the world peace motive outweighs them, i just would want to be sure of the main arguments against that?
All good actors expectorate Oly. Don't worry about that. ;)
Would NATO attack Libya if they had a proper nuclear program? I don't think so, and that's why I think UK should keep it nukes. You never know when you need them, and when they're gone, it's pretty hard to get them back. Look at Iran, they don't have any nukes and thus is not allowed to get any.
I think nukes is a much better deterant to conventional war than to nuclear war. How many countries in the middle-east would be safe from western intervention if only they had a proper nuclear program?
sevret313 Who is likely to attack us though? France maybe, it's been a while since we had a war with them. We are a major military power, part of the largest military bloc in the world and closely allied to the global hegemon. The closest country that could potentially have the motivation and capability to attack us is Russia, which would literally have to go through the rest of Europe to get to us. The UK is not under threat at the moment, and I think the fact that the world's nuclear stockpile is so heavily concentrated in the hands of a small number of, predominantly Western countries, with a long history of Imperialism, probably does more harm than good in terms of promoting global peace and security.
Russia doesn't have the capacity to attack the UK. It doesn't have the blue water assets to do so. Only one state has the capacity to attack the UK - the US.
The question I'm thinking of in my head is this: assume I am the country that is nuking Britain. Let's say Latveria is bombing great Britain, I think they're the same size and distant enough that nuclear fallout from one won't affect the other. If I bomb once, what's to stop me from bombing a second time? Let's say that I bomb Britain with no repercussions, they just bend in and accept whatever I wanted them to in the first place, what's to stop me from threatening another country by bombing it, perhaps Norway, they have money and I want that, just for an example.
This is how I see the argument for keeping nukes. If retaliatory fire would stop Latveria in its reign of terror, period, then it is worth having that option. You can trust America to have your back, but enough of Europe is relying enough on American military (it's not like you hear many European armies doing anything remarkable on the news) that Europe itself has to at least have some teeth in the international conversation of what happens when people are being terrible.
Micah Drake You're very unlikely to send multiple waves of missiles. The point of the weapon is to wipe out as much of the opponent and infrastructure as you can. Sending all your bombs in one shot will grant you not only the element of surprise, but it would greatly increase the chances of you wiping out your opponent's strategic resources. (Like Pearl Harbor), if they had sent waves of planes days apart, we would have been ready for the second wave.
Luckily today, there's simply no good reason to want to wipe your opponent off the map, you won't get their resources, their land, their people, nothing. We're living in a world economy, and it's not a zero sum game.
Eugene S indeed, that's what chemical warfare is so handy, the people are gone, admittedly in one of the least humane ways imaginable, and all the inorganic stuff is unharmed.
I think the gigantic fire breathing Thatcher could be a good replacement for the nuces ... would scare the pants of me even though we are allies.
Well thought out reasoning in favor of disarmament as regards nuclear weapons.
A good analogy here is being one of those people who stocks up on crazy amounts of guns because one day the government might come after them for some reason, or even worse, decide to take his guns! They;re planning for such a batshit crazy scenario that it never occured to them to even ask if it makes any sense, or what would actually happen if their scenario played out in real life. How far do they think they can get with 500 guns when there's a swat team at their door, or a sniper on the hill?
Weapons are just an extension of our need to feel powerful, because of that we often forget to ask if that power is of any use. Carrying a concealed gun on yourself for the purpose of "protection" will almost never offer any protection to you, and some of the times will just end up putting you in a situation where you might be forced to end a life. Just get robbed, give them your money and let the police deal with it. Revenge is never a reasonable reason for murder.
On the one hand Multlareralism, whereby two nuclear states negotiate terms and reduce their respective nuclear stock piles in exchange for the agreement that the opposing side will act in good faith and reduce their's has worked. This occurred at the end of the Cold War.
Recently the Ukrain decided to unilaterally disarm itself of nuclear weapons, they renounced their previous status and returned these weapons to the Russian Federation, on the basis that they would be assured of their territorial integrity. However, despite this the Ukraine was invaded.
Need I say more?
About to have an A Level Politics debate on this tomorrow and this video is definitely gonna give me an upper hand so thanks
Honestly, while looking at the manifestos of different parties during RE, Trident was something that stood out, mainly because of the different opinions that were to be had about it. Personally I disagree with the owning of nuclear weapons, but could it be better to just possibly decrease the amount we have instead of scrapping them all together? It would mean they wouldn’t cost as much, but if there ever was a threat we would have them as a standby, though hopefully they would be our last resort. In terms of the amount of conversation I’ve had about different solutions for it, this is really much like wanting to leave Europe.
When it came out that US nuke codes were stored on 8 1/4-inch floppy disks that have probably degraded quite a bit, I saw "it's a bluff" everywhere. So, either we don't do a good job of bluffing, or people assume poor decision-making is unlikely.
you forgot the most likely reason to use nukes: an alien invasion
Before anyone answers this question, watching "Threads" should be mandatory.
Retaliation is more than just an act of revenge though. By launching a counter strike, you prove that you are indeed willing to launch a counter strike, making future bluffs more believable. You cannot win poker through mere bluffs. You have to actually hold cards that the other players are afraid of and play them from time to time.
If retaliation does not occur, the enemies will not fear attacking again, and 3rd parties who were afraid before of retaliation are no longer afraid of retaliation. They know that they can basically just bomb you out of existence and you won't fight back.
If retaliation does occur, then the enemy has 2 options: 1) Realize you weren't bluffing and stop attacking for fear that even those in the bunkers will be killed. This also puts those bunker people in really bad standing for the people who are now pissed that a nuke got dropped on them and their families because of the attack. 2) Re-retaliate, which will lead to both sides being destroyed. However, this line won't be followed if the people holding the button desire to survive over retaliate, which they probably do.
Thank you Nuclear Information Service
Just had such a huge “aha” moment because of this video. Like, to the point where as soon as I got it I just thought “crap, I can’t believe I never thought of that.” I’ve always thought of mutually assured destruction as an inevitability caused by the existence of nuclear weapons, but I’m seriously rethinking that notion.
I'm so happy that someone actually did a video about the defensive use of nuclear weapons. People rampage about the internet talking about how horrible any country that would even want nukes supposedly is. No one even acknowledges that most countries just want to be secure. This may or may not be a good argument. But it is, or at least should be, impossible to deny their role as a defensive weapon system. No country with nuclear weapons has ever been successfully invaded by a foreign power. Most haven't even had anyone try (I can only think of Israel feel free to inform me otherwise). Governments aren't trying to run headlong into the apocalypse. Most of them just want their people and their way of life to be safe. Sure, you can argue that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire them and he could have used them aggressively, but what example other than the US in WWII d you have? None. And even the US started the program because they knew the Nazis wanted to do it first.
That said I think he profoundly misunderstands the idea of nuclear deterrence. It's not bluff. Governments really would nuke other countries is response. It's the very reality of the threat that is important. Bluffing is when you really can't win, or even strike back. All the opponent has to do is realize you are bluffing and then attack. The more often you bluff, the more likely you are to have someone call you're bluff. If you really intend to flatten a country, destroy its major cities and military resources and cripple its economic capacity to the point where everyone who survives the blasts will starve without foreign aid, you are not bluffing. That is the exact opposite of bluffing.
That's a nice rant you've got there. I'm not entirely sure what it actually has to do with the point I made. I specifically stated that I wasn't making an actual claim that the nukes were making the countries that have them safer. I said that it's unfair to ignore that their intentions are often defensive.
I generally agree with everything you said. I'm Canadian and I would strongly oppose any proposal to develop a nuclear arsenal here. But the scenario that I think could justify nukes is something along the lines of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Say Russia were to move an army into a NATO member, why wouldn't NATO respond by nuking the bulk of that army or the nearest supply point for that army. That would be an extreme measure but it seems like an option that could reasonably be put on the table to counter a land invasion.
I'm skeptical about the line or argument that Little Boy and Fat Man saved more lives than it killed in the Pacific theater of WWII. If I'm not mistaken, the military high command of Japan were prepared to keep on fighting despite the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was the ceremonial emperor who defied the generals' commands and surrendered to the Allies. If it wasn't for that emperor, the war would have still continued, despite the already massive death and injury count.
I'd argue that the scenario described where the bomb has gone off already, the weapon is useless (unless you go for total annihilation of the attacker, and even then, usefulness is debatable), and agree with you there (for the petty revenge), but that's because the function of the bomb would be basically indistinguishable from a retaliation war with conventional weapons. Furthermore, if a bomb did go off as described, war would ensue immediately, and in a conventional war scenario there are more important targets than the civilian population for a nuclear strike (so I doubt that would be the first target).
The actual use in the years after WW2 was deterrence, I'd say it still works; there is need for massive stash of them, but just enough (minimum for a tactical or strategical response/ complete wipe of the potential attacker) to make another government wary, should conventional war begin to escalate (cough, Putin, unconvincing cough). Also, as in the example of the Korean war, use of the nuclear option is discouraged when allies of the receiving end of the nuclear stick have nuclear capability (Russia in this scenario), thus reducing the likelihood of use in the first place.
Global disarmament would be nice, but as soon as somebody retains the capability to fabricate, or hides away some, the arms race begins anew, as no-one would allow a potential adversary to have such advantage (and trust is dangerous in this case).
To me, the best option is not complete disarmament, just severe reduction of the nuclear armament, with the minimum caveat as described above.
your thoughts on this arrangement?
It's a common mistake but major cities wouldn't actually be the primary targets of a nuclear attacks. They will mostly likely be secondary targets and it will be the industrial areas of the cities.
The primary targets would be military airbases, radar stations and ports like Liverpool and Hull. They would be the main targets because the vast majority of nuclear weapons for the Uk are carried by Submarines and Aircraft.
I can't believe I've never heard this argument before regarding nuclear disarmament. It seems so simple yet I've just never heard anyone argue this point of 'why retaliate' and I almost feel like it was never even an option, like that I had just always been taught 'oh well we have them because if they attack us we'll attack back so they wont attack us' and it just always seemed logical but this is even better and more logical, if we are not going to use them in any case except in a retaliation attack then is a retaliation attack worth having them for? Surely we could retaliate with non nuclear weapons and cause just as much damage or even better use weapons to target certain structures instead of just glassing the entire area, IF we would even retaliate which again just seems petty especially if we wont even know if we get the people behind the attack.
The only reason I could think of to retaliate would be to stop a future attack but a retaliation doesn't prevent that nor does it require nuclear weapons so that isn't a very good argument for keeping them. Short of that I can think of no other reasons for keeping nuclear weapons and honestly I can't believe I've never had this thought before. I had always been on the fence about nuclear weapons because they seem so grossly morally wrong, if killing is morally wrong, and these are designed for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people then they are clearly wrong, but I was always on the side of 'they're a necessity' for use as a deterrent but that's not actually the case is it? There are other ways to deter countries from attack by non nuclear means and the cost and risks involved with nuclear weapons makes it a pretty logical decision to get rid of them completely IMO.
The fear people may have though is that they really do protect us from potential threats and if we just had none we would leave ourselves vulnerable but we are just as vulnerable with or without nuclear weapons in fact one could argue we are at more risk by keeping them around. I know it shouldn't happen because the nuclear weapons aren't sitting around primed and armed but I had always pictured a domino scenario if we were attacked it would set of our own nuclear weapons that would just detonate all across the country in silos wherever they are. Of course as I said that couldn't happen because the nuclear weapons are not stored in a way that they can detonate (as far as I know...) but it makes you think. What if our systems were hacked and all the stored nuclear warheads were programmed to arm themselves and detonate in their silos? Again I assume we have a system in place to prevent all of that but if we had no nuclear weapons at all then the chances of these things happening drop to 0 entirely and there are actual possible risks to keeping nuclear weapons (as mentioned in the video) so the risk is greater having them than not having them.
This seems to require backing up a bit, to a discussion of justifications for the use of violence in general - and whether the nuclear option represents a different enough sort-of-thing-in-kind to distinguish it from other forms of violence.
*Violent catharsis* diminished anxiety derived from inflicting suffering on those who've hurt you.
Oh sweet vengeance how I love thee.
I still think that you have not properly thought through the deterrent idea. Look at it from the point of view of a potential aggressor with nuclear capabilities. If we do have nukes then their is always the chance we could retaliate in kind. If we do not then there is only less immediate less impactful methods of retaliation. So a potential aggressor is less likely to initiate nuclear violence whilst we have them. This is all true regardless whether or not we intend to use them and that choice to retaliate or not is one that needs to be made after we have been nuked not before.
4:20 How do you know that Britain isn't bluffing with its nukes? As you said, the country's leadership would have to convince everyone that they were ready to use them, so we don't really know if they're bluffing or not. We also don't know if the nukes are even real. A successful bluff would require convincing everyone that they're real, and part of that would also require reporting realistically high production and maintenance costs.
1.) Unknown Enemy: One day we are attacked by an unknown force. Nuclear weapons are useful due to crossing a "Godzilla Threshold." (imminent asteroid impact, super-bio-weapon release, A.I. hostile, Von Neumann swarm, against invading army, etc. Totally imaginable.)
2.) Total War: In a total war there are the solders shooting guns and the solders making guns. No civilians. (except young children, elderly, pacifists, diplomats,...by drone strike standards: acceptable [sarcasm.])
3.) Guilt Grows: People control government and army; guilt is multiplied, not diluted, thus they are guilty. Hold a trial, and carry out the sentence. [sarcasm]
4.) Military Use: Hit a military stronghold, not a city. We can use (smaller) nukes on military targets, like naval groupings.
5.) Status Symbol: Having nukes means a country is rich and strong enough to build, maintain, and secure them. It means the country believes it can keep them secure and that is no bluff. This allows for widespread use of nuclear technology without fear that they will use the by products to make a bomb (because they already have several.) Losing that status implies weakness and 'invites' challenge or divestment. (Not really true in Britain's case.)
6.) Other Weapons: There are some weapons that are worse than (or similar to) nukes. Bio-weapons, cluster munitions, defoliants, area denial chemical weapons, fuel air munitions, and some soft targets like dams, key ports, or industries can cause more deaths.
Agree about use as a retaliation tool.
It's not binary. Cut down without getting rid of all of the warheads. Idea: "How dead does it really need to be?"
I'm late to the party by a bit, but I wanted to bring up Black Swan moments. These are moments that we do not really foresee, but would have a large impact. Aside from this being a possibly good episode for you to consider (Black Swan Theory), the Black Swan moments where nuclear weapons are helpful or needed could have larger implications than Black Swan moments for your second Big Ben or Mecha-thatcher. This isn't really a pro or con comment on nuclear weapons, I just think it's another facet you could have covered, the impact of events for not having nuclear weapons when needed is likely larger than for your other examples.
Could you talk more about the idea of a completely impartial (or in this case nonpartisan) information distribution service? Is distributing information ever impartial or are all choices of what to include inherently based on your own/institutional persuasion?
After spending eight months doing coursework on Hiroshima/Nagasaki and after watching the films 'Threads', 'When the Wind Blows' and 'Barefoot Gen' I can firmly say that I believe no good can come from having nuclear weapons. Mass death and trauma, total destruction of infrastructure and society and a squalid existence cowering in what remains of your cupboard under the stairs. Even if you dislike another country, there's got to be better ways of dealing with your issues.
Even though the Cold War has ended (although it's fired up slightly recently), the fact that nuclear weapons exist and still could be used terrifies me.
Also that money could really be used for better things. I mean, we've got that £1,000,000,000,000 deficit, student tuition fees are sky high, the NHS is in crisis. The things we do use are going under because we're spending so much on the things we're not using. Where's the logic?
The Vanguard/Trident program is very costly, but MAD seems to have actually worked since ? but scale it back !
My worry about getting rid of trident isn't it's use but the human, existential response to it's potential use. There is something more comforting and secure about being in a strong position - or at the very least perceiving yourself as such.
With no trident there is not as much perceived security. Building a pillow fort makes you feel safe but it won't protect you from a bullet. And nuclear weapons only represent one way in which we build such securities around ourselves. Making ourselves feel secure is important, whether or not we actually are. The illusion is more powerful and the reality.
We lock our houses, knowing full well the windows are easily broken, we take out insurance knowing the likelihood of a payment is low.
The question of whether it is 'moral' to do this is separate and comes after the existential question. Humans are experts in giving ourselves false or illusory aspects in order to make the world seem more hospitable to each of us in particular. Trident is one aspect of that.
To get rid of trident therefore, a monumental shift in how we think of the relationship between security and nuclear weapons would need to be enacted.
Call me Nietzchean, but how we think about the world is far more relevant than how it actually might be.
bruno But you make yourself a target having these weapons. Nuclear weapons are not a pillow fort, they're a gun in your home. If somebody were determined to break into your home, they'd need to shoot you in order to make sure you won't shoot them back.
If you didn't have a gun, the person might just enter your home, take some things and leave without killing you.
Neither can I think of many reasons why Britain should keep Trident/Nuclear. But, playing devil's advocate, does the fact that we possess them, in large quantities, give us more clout on the international stage, to dictate the terms of treaties and free trade agreements? In effect, leading to indirect economic benefits.
***** Hm, I dunno about that. You'd hope not!
You would hope not. But I always wondered why Russia is still considered a 'powerful' country.
***** Getting your way because you have the biggest gun and are crazy enough to use it technically works, but I think people are starting to wise up. You can earn more international respect by showing respect these days. Acting like a cowboy (Bush and Putin) is getting viewed more and more as childish penis measuring contests.
This is a tricky one. On a whole, disarming the nukes seems like the moral good. However, at the same time the concept of MAD sits on my mind as I think through the scenarios. We're posed with the thought experiment where we're the receiver of the nuclear missile, but I think upon the reverse. If military aggression is enough justification for the nuclear option, what remains to prevent or at least, dissuade the launching of the bomb? Only the morals of the person or people who have to make the decision for the launch.
This is really the big issue keeping me from agreeing 100%. As far as I know - and please, inform me if there's something I'm unaware of - there isn't a defence system against nuclear weapons yet. I only know of two means of preventing nuclear destruction; M.A.D. as a interaction process, and the talked about Star Wars program where I think the plan was for lasers to detonate nuclear missiles in transit so that they would cause less harm but that program never established.
The only other method to prevent Kaboom from firing the ICMB I can think of right now, if we didn't have a nuclear program as a M.A.D. deterrant, would be to avoid war altogether, or surrender before it escalated to a stage where nuclear weapons were considered.
I would prefer to see disarment of nuclear weapons, but I couldn't agree to it while knowing that there was no way prevent its usage by other nations. If there were no military conflicts in the present or the foreseeable future, yes. If there was something like the Star Wars system to stop defend against nukes, yes. If the whole world, in one fell swoop, rid itself of the nuclear bomb forever, yes... And I feel that those things are not far away but until something has been actualised, I couldn't agree with disarment. I wish I could, or better yet, I wish I could convince myself that the moral virtue of the act of disarmment is worth the potential risk, but it just won't sit right with me.
Worst thing about this whole argument is trying to come to terms with the fact that if I was in the chair and had to make the decision whether or not to launch nuclear weapons in response to Kaboom launching nuclear weapons at my country, I'd like to hope that I would be able to say yes - putting blood of innocents on my hands - to make good on the whole practice of M.A.D. This probably makes me a bad person to some degree, that I want to be able to launch nuclear weapons if faced with the choice, but if I consider not launching the nukes in reltaliation, then M.A.D. is thrown futher into doubt which might lead to other nations like Kaboom to launch their nukes. Perhaps by pushing the button, I maintain the concept of M.A.D. which prevents further launches, or helps inspire gloabl disarmment but I have no way of know what would happen. Even if it did happen, I'd probably die anyway and never be able to do anything about it.
Ideally, I want a third solution like the Star Wars project to come about, to make all intercontinental missiles worthless so that they might all be disarmed simultaneously. That seems like the best solution to me.
"God bless us everyone
We're a broken people living under loaded gun
And it can't be outfought.
It can't be outdone.
It can't be outmatched.
It can't be outrun."
1. WW2 nukes used aggressively also one of the elements in the arms race was to have a first strike capability
2. MAD is in the past the question is about a limited strike and that ups the game
I hope that there will be no cases of even threatening nuclear bombing and nuclear wars in ever distant future. But there is some difficulties about a nuclear disarmament. There was a point in a history when the only country that had a nuclear weapon was U.S.A. and their behaviour, at least in eyes of some people, was like "yeah, what you gonna do 'bout it? Deal with it!". The point is that the nuclear disarmament might be even too complicated thing to do in the distant future.
But surely there is a hope.
Not so sure about this. The UK deterrent is capable of destroying an attacker's leadership, no matter how deeply bunkered in they are. Retaliation does not depend on killing non-combatant people in the attacker's country, even though may would be killed in a counter-force strike (aimed at the enemy's leadership and nuclear forces).
The thing is though that they might be fake nucular weapons, they wouldnt tell us if they where fake.
If you don't respond you send a message that you are the boy that will take it. Others will feel much safer in assuming that when they hit you too, you will still just take it, and they will be unharmed just like the first attacker was. That can make the original aggressor attack you even more, and can make like-minded observers to start attacking.
If you respond you send a clear message that even if someone can make you bleed, you can make them bleed too.
That's the deterrent part.
Mutuality assured destruction only prevents nuke attacks because it just that, an assurance. if a country didn't retaliate in kind then other countries would then know that its safe to nuke them again. Retaliation would also be solid proof that one country at least is serious about their threat of MAD and other countries would be less likely to attack them again. A retaliation nuke would prevent many more nukings in the future.
So... it is bad to be paranoid i guess.
I live in the harsh district of my city and because of that i ALWAYS carry a knife with me (a victorinox). If someone wants to rob me i can just open my knife and say "sod off or i'll use this". Yes, it's paranoid, nobody robbed me yet, but it doesn't mean nobody won't rob me. (and i'm aware that even if i threat back there is a chance the guy won't stop)
Same goes to nukes. The difference is that "nations' little knife" hurts more people.
If you KANT consider the difference between foreseen harm and intended harm, I don't know what to do.
"Other countries of the world including ones who are under much graver military threats than us manage just fine without them"
Do you think Ukraine would be being invaded if it still had it's nukes?
Seems like one of those unknown reasons that we couldn't have predicted 10 years ago.
Adrian Blake Given Putin's need to pander to Russian nationalists and the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine, yes I do think it would have been.
No two countries that both had nukes have ever gone to war, why do you think Putin would risk invading a nuclear armed state?
I think that question misconstrues the source of Russia's military aggression. Putin might not invade a nuclear state but there are plenty of non-nuclear states that he also might not invade for different reasons.
It was well known and its in the Whitehall papers I think Winston played hell when he found out and told that little piano playing president so when he met him
Manufacturing new SSBN's is not in violation of the NPT, we're not building new weapons, we're not even building new missiles, we're building naval vessels, just like Russia is, however they're also developing new missile systems and actual explosives.
All i have to say is North Korea... No one is invading them anytime soon.... same with UK. But I agree with most your points still.
It is a simple argument - if a nation favours non-proliferation then nuclear disarmament is imperative.
In the scenario where a nuclear attack takes place, will retaliation by launching nuclear missiles help to support the country's defences against a subsequent attack? There is no reason to assume so, in fact there is just as much reason to think that nucear attacks could continue until one of the two countries would exhaust its arsenal, which would be devastating. So it can be argued that it may be in the interests of the country that has been attacked to not use nuclear weapons.
Why react to any action then? That's literally what you're saying. Don't react if somebody hurts you, steals from you, etc. Maybe because everyone knows if you don't react, they will keep on doing it because there are no repercussions.
Possessing nukes may make your country even more vulnerable though. I think a great solution could be if Britain piggybacked off of other nations nukes, USA for instance. So then you'd have a system where if Britain, as well as a few other countries, was nuked a different country would respond. Therefore it would make Britain less likely to be nuked because other countries are the ones that would respond and actually be dangerous, not it. I don't see why a country would nuke a non nuke country when they knew that another country, which they could decide to nuke instead, would retaliate for them.
You say that there would be no point in retaliating to a nuclear attack once it has happened and I agree with you, but that's not what "deterrent" means. The idea is to decrease the chance that someone will attack you in the first place. If you set up the system so that attacking you with nukes is very dangerous for the attacker then you will be less likely to be attacked.
The question here is not "having been attacked what would you do?" it is "if we are less likely to be attacked if we would retaliate, does this reduced chance of a humanitarian disaster compensate for the increased scale of the disaster if it occurs" i.e. if the deterrent would make us four times likely to be attacked, but result in twice as many civilian deaths if we were then we have halved the likely number of deaths.
Of course, if you choose the deterrent as the better option, and you judge a bluff to be unlikely to work, then you must deliberately put a system or person in charge of the response that will definitely respond with a counterattack. If a bluff would work, but people might forget it was actually a bluff, then you have lost nothing, only reduced the chance that the counterattack will occur, without increasing the chance of being attacked in the first place.
A reprisal strike prevents the aggressor from being able to muster the power to invade you after their own strike. They can’t take advantage of being the aggressor if their own country is falling apart.
One of the many issues with the removal of nuclear weapons can be summed up in one word: reliance. Look, let's say England gets rid of its nuclear weapons. If a situation comes up requiring nuclear weapons or a need to respond to nuclear attacks, Britain must look to America or France or Germany to get a response. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Not entirely, but foreign policy moves very fast, as we saw with the invasion of Crimea by rebel forces. While nuclear weapons do not make a country stable, they allow more or less for a country to be self-reliant, at least in situations dealing with the nuclear capabilities of other nations.
I live in a town where BAE systems are the biggest employer. Without Trident we would be left as a ghost town. I am completely opposed to nuclear weapons from a moral perspective, but practically I am torn because of the effect disarmament would have on the people who live here. It's a culture and it has been for over a hundred years.. many people rely on it as a source of income. I would be interested to here views on this.
hear*
+Megan Williams Mmm, I have another video planned on nuclear weapons that will deal with this, I'm just trying to find a sponsor for it.
I think this needs to be a public referendum
4:18 best reference of today's video
It seems that many of the pro nuke arguments are similar to the pro gun arguments in the U.S. And look how well that has turned out.
I know it's weird to leave a comment like this on an old video, but does anyone know if the clip of the countdown in the opening is the source of the sample that begins The The's classic song "I've been Waiting for Tomorrow All of My Life"
As a close follower of both Military Theory and History - I only have one bone to pick with your argument good sir - more of an editorial one, really.
You mentioned a 3.3 MT bomb going off in London and called that a medium sized bomb. Historically, you'd be right - but currently not so much.
After a few different disarmament rounds here in the United States, the largest yield warhead remaining in our active or near active stockpile is 475 KT. Russia is about on par with only .5 megaton range weapons available to it currently.
For this current discussion on the UK's nuclear weapons a 3.3 MT warhead would be beyond gigantic compared to the available warheads of Russia and the US.
I believe Von Clausewitz was on to something when he described the end goal of total war - whatever it takes you render your enemy incapable of continued belligerence - since WWII we have all been lucky not to see such a war, but I half suspect such ebbs and flows are pseudo-regular and that another world-burning conflagration is only a matter of time.
Whether or not nuclear warheads are available the body count will remain atrocious.
In the MAD game, the point of nuclear retaliation is to destroy the enemies infrastructure so that the following military campaign will meet less capable resistance when it comes time to roll over the enemy border. Even in a full on nuclear exchange at the peak of the nuclear stockpiles in 1983 would've taken a decade to kill half the population of Earth.
Which still leaves plenty of people in uniform, and plenty of continuance of governance plans in place for the conventional finish of the nuclear-started war, with much less destructive power available today, the conventional finish to said nuclear started war will be much more brutal with more survivors and infrastructure left to fight it.
I'd like to ramble on about methods of thermonuclear weapon manufacture than would create fall-out free super weapons (The Russian Tzar Bomba was designed for a 100 MT blast, then tested at half that yield with practically no fallout whatsoever - no joke) - or that Enhanced Neutron Radiation Bombs leave no fallout or significant blast damage, merely a hideously powerful pulse of ultra-deadly neutron radiation . . .
But It seems weird to add Greenpeace acceptable thermonuclear weapons to an already strained point . . .
Bj Hamblin I chose 3.3 because that was what China used to have - by the standards of those that were available for running the simulation it was a medium. But yeah, I take your point.
Philosophy Tube And I yours good sir - I love your channel and have eagerly devoured each video of yours for a while.
I would submit that nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons available (until anti-hydrogen production ramps up, at least) yet their destructive power is not as apocalyptic as reported or believed.
Even though a full strategic nuclear exchange would be on par with a relatively instantaneous Black Plague of Death in it's effects - Europe survived that disaster, as mankind would no doubt survive a full nuclear exchange and it's resulting total war of conventional weapons.
And to stick to your main point, even if the nuclear weapons were all launched into the sun tomorrow - how much worse would WWIII's conventional strategic firebombings be than a few well placed thermonuclear warheads?
I don't know about UK, I'm an Indian and I know how important our Nukes for us (we're sandwiched between Pakistan and China duh!!). Most of our foreign policy has been a success bcz of our Nukes. Of course with a great track record as a responsible Possessor... Big fives thought only they've the moral right to keep Nukes bcz only their citizens lives matter unlike other country's only they need to deter. But once there is an existence of even a single Nuclear power the entire world feels unsafe (at least after the real demonstration US did on Japan in WW2) and every country needs to have that deterrent to save their sovereign power. N-Korea would have been Vietnam/Afghan hadn't it had Nuclear power. .
If it needs to be disarmed, it should be GLOBAL! Not unlike only some elite will posses it, as if they're the saviors of the world. The world knows from all the ways who messed and are still messing with the world...
I find that people often downplay the importance of roles. For instance, I'm a civilian in a laughable nation, in the event of a war there is no security for me either way. The philosopher must most frequently appeal to man's best nature, because that's his predominant vocation. It would be remiss of a statesman, however, to remove the works of the likes of Hobbes or Machiavelli from his nightstand. If you assume you need nuclear weapons, and then it turns out you don't, there's no harm. Conversely, if you assume you don't need them, and it turns out you do, while the philosopher is left to ponder just how badly he once again overestimated human beings, what is the statesman to do? For him, to err on the side of caution means to always assume the worst. Britain is what it is today exclusively because it won crucial battles at crucial times. Until we rethink the very concept of Nation, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss military power as a deterrent, especially not in a statesman's shoes, and most definitely not if I were a Brit, with a tendency to feel at home in the homes of others, and a unique fondness for sticking flags in everything that stands still long enough...
PHILOSOPHY ON CON INCIDENCE, and whether or not the universe creates them to cause certain events to unfold
3.3 Mt is considered medium-sized? I would normally consider that to be at the upper end of what exists in modern arsenals.
I think there’s an argument for Nuclear deterrent there goes beyond hostile countries launching nukes at your country. For example imagine their are too countries that are very antagonist too each other and are basically enemies. Lets consider some options. If both of them have nuclear weapons they will avoid direct antagonistic conflict as much as possible because of M.A.D. Now conflict will still occur between the two nations but in an indirect way. If neither of them have nuclear weapons then perhaps there will be more direct conflict, but it won’t be that deadly. But if only one of the two has nuclear weapons, then the other is in an incredibly problematic situation. Because the nuclear-equipped nation now has the power to destroy the other one instantly and there’s nothing that nation can do, so the nuclear one will be able to do essentially whatever it wants to the other.
Even though I think this valid, I would still say that nuclear disarmament is the right choice even if it happens one at a time. But its something that can’t be overlooked.
I like the starcraft music :)
I am no militarist, but there certainly are clearly rational strategic reasons for statesmen to maintain their nuclear arsenals. There are at least two reasons to retaliate with nuclear force should Kaboom nuke London. 1) It would to some important extent hinder Kaboom's ability to continue launching nuclear weapons at Britain; and 2) nuclear retaliation would demonstrate to other potentially aggressive states that using nuclear weapons against the UK is a bad idea. These two reasons to retaliate also reinfoce the original veneer of deterrence, because statemen are then generally aware of the rational strategic utility of retaliating. Thus, the logic of retaliation is not based vengeance, as you suggest, it is informed by perfectly rational cost-benefit analysis and a desire to avoid further nuclear attack...Just to problematize things further: do you think the cold war would have remained 'cold' if nuclear weapons hadn't existed? Some might say the existence of nuclear weapons in this way avoided the cold war from turning into WWIII. Some might even say nuclear weapons are to some extent responsible for humankind, as a whole, enjoying an unusually peaceful historical period since the end of WWII...