Tuesday, November 03, 2015

This goes for Cumbria too ...

Ruth Davidson, leader of the Conservatives in Scotland has issued this statement indicating that the Scottish Conservatives support those working in the defence industries and in naval bases whose jobs would be put at risk if the SNP, Scottish Labour, or Jeremy Corbyn succeeded in closing nuclear submarine bases in Scotland.
Conservatives in Cumbria stand in similar solidarity with BAE Systems employees and all the workers in Barrow and elsewhere who have built and maintained the Vanguard submarines which carry Britain's current Trident nuclear deterrent, and subject to a parliamentary vote next year, will build and maintain the successor submarine programme.
The Conservatives are committed to maintaining Britain's nuclear and conventional defences and will meet the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence.
Nuclear weapons were needed in the past to deter aggression by the former Soviet Union and they succeeded in doing so. Conservatives believe that we live in a dangerous world and Britain cannot afford the luxury of pretending there is no possibility that in the next thirty years that deterrent will be needed again.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament would mark Britain in the eyes of potential predators as lacking the will to defend ourselves or our allies. Let us remember the comments with which a former Soviet President, Yuri Andropov - who like the present Russian leader, was previously KGB - showed what he really thought of the likes of CND and "Stop the War" -
"Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not naive people."
Neither are we.


Jim said...

Nuclear war as a deterrent. Now obviously I am not anti nuclear for peaceful means, but nuclear war as a deterrent to me is a little like 2 men stood waist deep in petrol. You have 600 matches, I have 3. Who wins?

A little like blackadder explaining how the war started

Jim said...

In short the only way either of us is getting out of the swimming pool is if one of us has the guts to throw their box of matches away.

now sure you can argue there is no way to force the other to do the same, but then, it does cure the Itchy fingers, and you flinched so I thought you were going to strike one, problem.

Chris Whiteside said...

Don't get me wrong, I was very careful to make clear that it is unilateral nuclear disarmament I regard as insane, not verified and balanced multilateral disarmament. And if you look at the context of Andropov's remarks which I quoted he was saying exactly the same thing from a Soviet viewpoint.

There were sensible treaties involving multilateral disarmament between NATO and the Warsaw pact, and other moves to prevent an accidental nuclear war, and I supported them.

Equally the nuclear deterrent did stop any large scale or direct war breaking out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations for forty years. One military officer or statesman said when I was a boy, "If these weapons ever have to be used, they've failed."

The deterrent did work. We'll never know, but it is my opinion that without nuclear weapons there would have been a World War III at some time between the Cuban missile crisis and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Peter Mc said...

in a 'lala' land of reason, universal common sense and consideration for neighbours there would be no bullies, thieves, terrorists or aggressive expansionist states - or need for Armies and Nuclear weapons. No sane person would not wish to live in such a world but sadly we are all flawed, none without blame and in this real world there sadly remains a need to be able to defend ourselves, robustly if required. Most bullies will look for an easier target if they think they will be met with equal or greater response to aggression. It's not pretty, it's not a nice place to be but for the security of our nation it has been and remains a sad necessity to maintain the ability to respond - in order to deter - a tried, tested and after more than 50 years a successful policy.

Bags I don't blink first!