Sunday, 14 February 2016

Nuclear red Herring

Perfect timing that just as the Government are trying to tell us how important it is that we maintain our nuclear weapons, Russia is the new big bad.
Britain needs a wolf at the door to keep at bay to justify its expenditure on weapons and last time they were up for renewal in the 80's it was Russia and the Warsaw Block we were deterring until the USSR ceased to be and we lost our reason for spending massive money on a weapon we won't ever use.
We have wheeled through China, Iran, Saddam's Iraq and now it's back to Russia again as the reason we have to spend £133 billion on a nuclear deterrent, to keep us safe.
What David Cameron fails to explain is exactly who are our nuclear submarines keeping us safe from and why is a weapons system more important to the country than spending the money on more hospitals, prisons or schools?
If we have £133 billion knocking around to spend on nuclear missiles, especially against a background of austerity cuts and a record number of food banks dishing out vital supplies, then why are we wasting it on a way of killing millions of people?
To almost quote Dwight Eisenhower, every rocket is a theft from those who hunger and are not fed and those who are cold and homeless.
The cost of the nuclear submarines are 2,660 schools (£50 million each), two electric power plants (£550 million each),  two fully equipped hospitals (£500 million each), 53,200,000,000 miles of road (£2.5m per mile) or 601,809 3 bedroom houses with garage (£221,000 each).
The justification that we need a nuclear deterrent is a red herring, we don't need one but we do need plenty of other things as we did in the 80s when we were last told we needed to spend billions on something we may possibly need in the future to ensure our survival.  
Meanwhile, other countries without nuclear weapons spent their money on improving the lives of their citizens, and all of the Western countries there in the 80s are still there and none have been vapourised through a lack of a nuclear device.

6 comments:

Keep Life Simple said...

Right, nobody would use their military to take from someone else. Russia didn't invade half of the Ukraine, ISIS isn't occupying parts of numerous nations, China isn't building military islands, North Korea doesn't want to harm anyone in South Korea, and Iran is developing nuclear capabilities for when they run out of oil in 400 years. Nobody needs a military.

Falling on a bruise said...

Spoken like a true paranoid right winger. Is Germany or Canada any less safer for not having the massive expense of nukes?

Keep Life Simple said...

I am paranoid? Did they teach history in your schools? I still have relatives that lived during WW2.

As long as the UK is in NATO you will be ok. Are you going to contribute to your own safety, or are going to be a drain on the rest? Being a follower of the left I suppose you have no problem be a drain...

Falling on a bruise said...

Paranoid or fearmongering, you pick. Do you seriously believe that if we didn't have nuclear weapons the Russian s, Chinese or North Koreans would sweep in and take over the UK?

Keep Life Simple said...

Not today. In 1937, did your great grandparents think Germany would try to dominate Europe?

Keep Life Simple said...

I have an idea. The US will protect Europe in return for Europe taking all the worlds refugees. After all, we are the war mongers and yawl are the only ones that care more people you don't know than you do yourselves.