Yesterday in the House of Commons, MPs voted by a huge majority to renew the Trident nuclear programme. We could argue all day about how much it’ll cost: some say as little as £30 billion (yes I know, Virginia), others as high as £150 billion. The cost, however, is not my main concern right now. It’s the morality of such weapons.
What are nuclear weapons used for? Like most weapons, they’re for killing people. This in itself is sad and cruel enough; but nuclear weapons are unique in one way: they’re intended to kill civilians. That’s what they did at Hiroshima, that’s what they did at Nagasaki in 1945. The Americans have always justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the grounds that Japan made an unconditional surrender shortly afterwards.
Why did they surrender? That’s obvious: the Japanese people were terrified more such weapons would be unleashed on them, so their government surrendered.
There’s a name for this kind of warfare; it’s called terrorism. Which may come as a surprise, since we’re used to the term ‘terrorism’ being applied only to paramilitary groups like the IRA or the UVF. And indeed, one of my dictionaries defines terrorism as “The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. “ Note that word ‘unauthorized’. ) But another of my dictionaries says simply “Terrorism: An organized system of intimidation.”
But whichever definition you choose, there is no doubt that nuclear weapons are designed to terrify the other side into non-belligerence. For the system to work, both sides must be convinced that the other isn’t bluffing and will press the button if they see that as necessary. Jeremy Corbyn has been widely scorned because he says, were he Prime Minister, he would not press the button – that is, he says he would not engage in a terrorist act. And yes, I did say he is scorned, berated, condemned for taking that position.
No such scorn can be directed at Tom Elliott, Danny Kinahan, Nigel Dodds, Ian Paisley, Gavin Robinson, Jim Shannon or David Simpson. Yesterday all of these men voted for the use of terrorism on a massive scale. Which should mean we won’t hear any of these men denounce IRA terrorism ever again. Right?
lets all listen to jeremy,put a french fleg on your facebook status and sign some book in city hall that will frighten them eh.meanwhile another refugee was enriching the people of germanys lives beating them with a hatchet only yesterday untill he was sent to meet allah.in situations like this dictionaries are better kept for doing crosswords.
Your idealism is commendable Jude and in a perfect world we wouldn’t need Nuclear weapons, or any kind of weapon.
Unfortunately the world is far from a perfect place and although nuclear weapons will do nothing to protect from the more immediate threat of terrorist attack, such as in Nice or a car bomb, they do serve a purpose of protecting the UK from a certain kind of threat.
That threat is a powerful, aggressive nation threatening the UK with nation on nation war. Although we can never be sure there is an argument to be made that nuclear weapons saved lives by stopping the Cold War turning hot.
While I highly doubt there will ever be a situation were these weapons will ever be used or even that there is a particular threat at the moment that requires the deterrent, I don’t have a crystal ball and can’t predict the future.
These weapons provide us with the most effective deterrent to certain type of threat and that deterrent needs to be maintained no matter how remote that threat is.
The nuclear ‘deterrent’ is a contradiction in terms, Scott – imho. You wave it about to deter the other guy but both of you know that to use it would mean annihilation for all. That’s a weapon I can do without.
The deterrent Jude is the fact that mutually assured destruction means that nuclear nations do not go to war. It has worked so far, although good help us the day it doesn’t.
As long as other nations hold nuclear weapons it’s safer to have them than not to have them.
I always thought Paisley sen. was a slabber. A cute slabber but a slabber, none the less. His son, Ian jr. is not even cute. He wants to bring nuclear submarines to Ireland – if the Scottish don’t want the jobs that go along with them. Tens of thousands of well paid jobs, he says. Turns out that Trident only supplies 500 jobs and the rest originate from the naval base. He wants to make a potential Chernobyl of East Antrim. How dare he, as a Briton, attempt to bring this plague to my country. Of course, he wished we could snoke more tobacco so JTI could stay open in Ballymena, so he has form for stupidity. Keep in with the Tories. It might pay off. Was big Ian or little Ian on the toilet council? Jeffrey and Arlene were invited.
Not only dictionaries,billy,but grammar books too. If you’re going to mangle a language, why pick on English. Books of Condolence are a mark of respect to the dead not to threaten their killers. I think Books should be opened for all the departed especially the children murdered in utero. Reach for your dictionary.
Who is my enemy?
Ms May stated she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people when challenged by George Kerevan SNP about whether she would ever approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life. Ms May stated:
“Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it…”
In contrast Mr Corbyn stated:
“I make it clear today I would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people, I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to deal with international relations.”
The word ‘terrorist’ can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. Perhaps it is time to avoid the term as it has a high level of use and a low level of meaning. The term is regularly used to create fear and prejudice. Perhaps it is time to let facts get in the way of a so-called ‘good story.’
I can understand why such weapons are needed, to keep other nuclear powers at bay, I don`t see why the UK needs so many. It was excruciating to witness Ian Paisley`s grovelling to Theresa May, practically begging her to build the things in Belfast or somewhere .I suppose it isn`t surprising seeing as he was wrong about the EU referendum. Maybe he can get his buddy Seymour Sweeney to tender for the gig?
Two links-burning statements which emanated from the Mainland yesterday, Esteemed Blogmeister, somehow failed to make the cut on the RTE Open this morning.
Statements which one might have expected the (gulp) Station of the Nation to welcome with a double hearty ‘Cead Mile Failte’ in this, the (gasp) ‘silly season’. Both indeed serious contenders for the Clarity Jug itself in a Troon-strewn pre-afternoon.
The first was the calm, measured response of the latest tenant of Ten, Downing Street to an edgy question in the Mother (!) of Parliaments from one of those sledgy , haggis-chomping SNP laddies, George Kervean:
-Are you prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children?
The answer was every bit as sweet and as monosyllabic as the surname of the utterer sheself:
-Yes.
Thus, spake Theresa ‘Maggie’ May (for it was she !).
The other eagle-eyed statement was stuttered by one David Davis, the Minister charged with overseeing the complexity of Brexity, during the course of a debate, oops, conversation on the Murnaghan Show on Sky :
-One of our really challenging issues will be the internal border we have with southern Ireland’.
Internal ?
How, on God’s good earth, could this politico-geographic-historical nonesuch be so? After the initial colonic shock and after one’s innards had eventually begun to settle down, one turned to that font of calming reassurance, The Unionist Times.
As one does.
And sure enough, after perusing one’s go-to guru du jour one’s equanimity was restored: God was in his h. and all was well with the Underwold of Eireland. One felt honoured to have David Davis (see above) as a fellow insatiable consumer of the same go-to guru.
-Ireland can shape debate on terrorism in Europe.
Eh?
What Fintan O’Toole (for it is he !) is making the case for here is nothing less than: not only were we the best Fans at the Euro Footie but we are also – woweee ! hora !- according to FOT, the best Fanatics in Europe as well.
-In Ireland most of us are terrorism experts.
Is there no end to our talents, at all, at all, at all ?
It will be recalled that the Grand Old Duke of Pork Barrel Politics (for it is also he !) was in his high pulpit in the hill-top Cathedral of Christchurch last Saturday delivering the same high-minded homily, give or take. This time he marched his taut but thoughtful thoughts all the way down to the bottom of the hill to deliver today’s pastoral preach-speech from the pulpit of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
This time he opted to illustrate his sermon with a poignant photo of the aftermath of the Dublin and Monaghan bombs, not. But rather with the p. p. of the aftermath of the Omagh bombing. Curiously, this latter photo is never-failingly to hand when the Glenanne Farm free-range eggheads go a asking.
Thunders the sermonizer:
-Go and see Brendan Byrne’s riveting new documentary on Bobby Sands and the 1981 Hunger Strike: 66.
(Modesty becomes the sermonizer: he astutely omitts to remark he features in same).
It ought to be noted that not only did the Great Shape-shifter of Shoneenism (still he !) change his location but he also opted to shift his shape as well: it’s what he does.
St. Patrick’s Cathedral, apart from the historical fact that its silent but eloquent stony-faced walls pay due tribute and give not a few testimonies to the heroic counter-terrorism on the Fuzzy-wuzzy Frontiers of the Empah, occupies a special piece of real estate in the heart of Fintan O’Toole. And also because of its funereal connection with Mr. Hyde (as in Douglas) .
That is why the Free Southern Stateen’s seeker after truth (pure, unvarnished ) shape-shifted for today’s sermon to the instantly recognizable persona of Dr. Seek.
Just what is it about his being surrounded by those sonorous stones, with their strange-sounding names from far-away places such as Omdurman, Ramnaga, Cawnpore, Lucknow, Khartoum and Moodkee itself ,decorated with a frilly fringe of jagged rags, that string of tattered but still frayed with pride Union Jacks?
That makes Dr. Seek go so (gulp) global?
-Donald Trump and Newt Gringrich, for example, could benefit from a crash course in the Troubles to remind them that Isis no more equals Islam than the UDA equals Protestantism or the IRA Catholicism.
So, there you have it: the official line than sticks, the approved British version of the Dirty Thirty War: it was just a shoddy local religious squabble, nothing at all to do with trivial matters such as National rights vis a vis Imperial demands.
After all, Dr. Seek sermonizes so. And David Davis, the Lord save us, concurs.
The time of Mr. Hyde has gone and the Times of Dr.Seek has come /Ta La an Lorgaire tagtha agus ta La an Folacker thart.
Hide ye therefore ‘On the Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland ‘by Mr. Hyde and go ye therefore to take a peek instead at the Protestant Truth Society pamphlet , ‘On the Necessity for Rr-Anglicising Ireland’ by Dr.Seek.
–
State sponsored terrorism is viewed entirely differently and you have topped and tailed the argument with clarity, Jude .
grma, John…
‘Note that word ‘unauthorized’.
lol I had to chuckle at that line. It basically means that its OK for specific governments to commit terrorist acts but its not OK for others. The good old “Its OK for us to do it but not for them’uns”. It’s like the logic the British Government and Unionist political parties engaged in here during the conflict. Whilst Paisley was denouncing the IRA and their actions, he was donning berets and Ulster Resistance was importing guns from South Africa, apparently without his knowledge (wink wink). Of course the weapons shipped in by UR was used in over 100 sectarian murders and even ended up in the hands of the UDA (which was LEGAL then, if my memory is correct)
I don’t mean to get all philosophical (OK I do but I’ll be quick) but is there even such a thing as “terrorism”? Yes the deliberate targeting of civilians could be called terrorism but you could also call that genocide too. The UDA drew up a plan (backed by the DUP) in 1993 calling for repartition and ethnic cleansing of Catholics. All remaining Catholics who aren’t expelled will be “nullified” according to this plan, in other words: murdered, aka genocide. Of course such a plan is fantasy. As if nearly a million Catholics will simply allow the likes of the UDA to try to expel them, not to mention the Provisional IRA. But some would argue the actions of the UDA/UVF wasn’t terrorism, it was simply genocide. 85% of Unionist targets were Catholic civilians. They made no secret that the Catholic community was their target. That sounds more like genocide to me, not terrorism.
Lord Mountbatten and Airey Neave were both killed by Republican paramilitaries. Both attacks were classed as “terrorism”. But was it? Or was it simply republicans fighting (and killing) their enemies? Why is killing Lord Mountbatten terrorism but killing 3 unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar not terrorism? Does Governments have a monopoly on the morality of ending someone’s life? Of course not, only God has the right to take life, not some bunch of politicians who repeatedly make false promises and lie in order to get elected.
I think the vast majority of people confuse legality with morality. Both are not the same, far from it. Some of the greatest evils and injustices have come from Governments (both elected and unelected). Our very own MT has a serious issue with confusing legality with morality but I get the feeling if something legal was to his disadvantage he wouldn’t be so confused anymore.
So terrorism, in my opinion, is just another buzzword in today’s society. Its a word used by Governments to make their violence/murder appear legitimate, whilst making other’s (‘terrorists’) appear illegitimate.
Would I press the button if I was in charge of a nuclear armed nation? No. The main thing I would think of in such a situation would be the amount of children that would die in such an event. Of course I would feel for the adult victims of such a disaster too but more so for children and maybe even nature/animals too.
But I also acknowledge that there’s other people in this World who aren’t like me and some of them are Leaders of nations who are armed with nuclear weapons. Most of them don’t give a toss about the people of their own nation, never mind the people of other’s. Imagine if North Korea was the only nuclear armed nation in the World. Something tells me Kim Jong Un would love to see the USA reduced to a wasteland of radiation but there is a strong argument he wont do it because he knows that the response would be a US Nuclear Strike so fierce that all that would remain of North Korea afterwards could be fitted into a match box…….
“‘Note that word ‘unauthorized’.lol I had to chuckle at that line. It basically means that its OK for specific governments to commit terrorist acts but its not OK for others. The good old “Its OK for us to do it but not for them’uns”.”
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that an extreme nationalist doesn’t understand or support democracy, ie can’t distinguish between decisions to use force made by a democratically accountable government and those made by unaxciiand unrepresentative gangs.
Oh MT, I see your as confused as ever. I’ll try to help you through the mist of confusion…..again.
First of all you speak of democracy as if its a good thing. I’m not saying its bad but its neither good or bad. Democracy can be easily abused and used for evil purposes. There’s plenty of examples in History of democracy being implemented and running its course and disaster ensuing. The Iraq War is one example, where the British House of Commons voted for a War which has killed up to one million Iraqi’s. That was Democracy MT. I wonder if you would be so “democratic” if it was a million Unionists from Norn Iron being slaughtered? But I guess its OK for Johnny foreigner…..
Democratically accountable Government? Has Tony Blair or George Bush be held accountable for the Iraq War? Last time I looked they were both elected back into power after the Iraqi invasion and both are now earning tens of millions, not sharing a prison cell together for their crimes…..
You seem to be under this impression MT that the people always come to the right decision through democracy. Far from it. The system in the West isn’t all that different to the one in China.
Just because someone is democratically elected doesn’t make that a moral decision. By your logic MT Adolf Hitler had moral authority because he was democratically elected to be German Chancellor in 1933.
Explain to me how I’m an “extremist” MT and how I “don’t understand or support democracy” even though I’m schooling you right now on the basics of democracy.
I also have to point out the irony of a UNIONIST calling someone else undemocratic given your history lol
“Oh MT, I see your as confused as ever. I’ll try to help you through the mist of confusion…..again.”
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. I’m not confused and nor am I often confused. On the contrary, I’m rarely confused.
“First of all you speak of democracy as if its a good thing. I’m not saying its bad but its neither good or bad.”
Wow. Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a pro-terror extreme nationalist is ambivalent about democracy.
“Democracy can be easily abused and used for evil purposes. There’s plenty of examples in History of democracy being implemented and running its course and disaster ensuing. The Iraq War is one example, where the British House of Commons voted for a War which has killed up to one million Iraqi’s. That was Democracy MT. I wonder if you would be so “democratic” if it was a million Unionists from Norn Iron being slaughtered? But I guess its OK for Johnny foreigner…..”
Looks like you’ve missed the point. Seems to have gone over your head. Nobody said all democratic decisions were good decisions.
“Democratically accountable Government?”
Yes.
“Has Tony Blair or George Bush be held accountable for the Iraq War?”
Both obtained majorities in their respective legislatures for their decisions to go to war.
“Last time I looked they were both elected back into power after the Iraqi invasion and both are now earning tens of millions, not sharing a prison cell together for their crimes…..”
That’s right. Standing for election is accountability.
“You seem to be under this impression MT that the people always come to the right decision through democracy.”
I’m neither under that impression nor do I seem.to be.
“Far from it. The system in the West isn’t all that different to the one in China.”
Wow. You can’t discern the difference between liberal democracy and a one-party communist state.
“Just because someone is democratically elected doesn’t make that a moral decision.”
Did somebody say it did?
“By your logic MT Adolf Hitler had moral authority because he was democratically elected to be German Chancellor in 1933.”
Hitler overthrew democracy, Ryan.
“Explain to me how I’m an “extremist” MT”
Rather obviously because you support nationalist terror.
“and how I “don’t understand or support democracy” ”
Because you weren’t able to discern the difference between a decision to use force made by a democratically accountable government and one taken by a unelected terror gang.
“even though I’m schooling you right now on the basics of democracy.”
But you’re not.
“I also have to point out the irony of a UNIONIST calling someone else undemocratic given your history lol”
But there is no irony. And unlike you my history is one of support for peace, democracy and against terror and unjust violence.