Tuesday, 25 April 2017

The Nuclear Option

Chauncey has the Communist Party of Great Britain on his side. Across the nation this revelation will have failed to stop anyone in their tracks. In much the same way Chauncey gave an interview at the weekend in which he wavered disastrously on the seemingly easy question about whether to kill the leader of a gang of criminals and zealots responsible for endless murders and probably even genocide. And of course he would send a letter to the commanding officers of our Trident submarines instructing them what to do in the event that they are unable to receive communications from London because it has been destroyed in a nuclear war. Chauncey would tell them that he wants to achieve a nuclear free world. Well, in the event that the commanders had to open a letter it would be probable that British nukes would be the only ones left since the rest of the world would have fired theirs and evaporated us all.

It is hard to decide, is it not, whether the insistence of the likes of Chauncey that they are working to create a more peaceful, nuclear free and nicer world is stupidity or stubbornness. Perhaps it is both. Do they really believe that those of us who support the retention of Trident want to see nuclear armageddon? Or have we learnt the lessons of history?

Add into the range of possibilities then that, in addition to stupidity and stubbornness is a large helping of preening vanity. Chauncey and co really do believe that they are better than the rest of us simply because they have a naive belief in talking, wanting peace, refusing to carry a stick in addition to talking softly. They are so determined to see the other point of view that they wave the white flag and become quislings. Hence Chauncey's appeasement of various terrorists over the years, something we are sure to hear more of in the coming weeks.

What do Chauncey and co see when they look at North Korea for instance? Do they see a country that is determined to join the nuclear club because it sees itself threatened with weapons that have not been fired in anger since 1945? Or do they see a regime that sees nuclear weapons as a guarantor of its continued ability to rape and rob its own countrymen and threaten the rest of the world unless it is bribed to play nice?

And what of Russia? How do they imagine that Vladimir Putin would behave if the doctrine of mutually assured destruction did not exist? Would he be even now expanding into those countries he regards as within his sphere of interest? Or would he be singing kumbaya around the camp fire and inviting us all to join in?

Here's an interesting question: why do the trade unions want the legislation that outlawed secondary picketing repealed? Its because it was a potent weapon they used to devastating effect in the 1970s to hold the rest of the country to ransom: a kind of industrial armageddon. Then along came Mrs Thatcher with her legislation and they were no longer able to.

Now Chauncey does not have the kind of intellect that will be able to compare and contrast those two things. He will see them as entirely unrelated. And they are to a large extent. But they do speak to human nature. And it is thanks to human nature that we need to have nuclear weapons. The moment that they were invented there was no turning back. Thankfully those who have these weapons are rational actors and appreciate the consequences. But that is why proliferation to the likes of North Korea is intolerable. North Korea would be obliterated in any exchange. But North Korea is not necessarily a rational actor. It might gamble that our rationality is our fatal weakness and thus play brinkmanship to its illogical conclusion. Much as the trade unions used to do and would again if they could. Call a strike and create havoc and poverty for everyone including your own side in the hope that the other side back down since they have no stomach for the fight.

But that is not an argument for unilateral disarmament. It is an argument for a minimum deterrent. It is an argument for what Britain has. It is an argument for having a leader who is prepared to use such weapons as a last resort and is prepared to say so. That is why, as a rule, the British people have resisted the opportunity to elect lefty posturing halfwits who have never grown out of their student politics.

The world is and remains a dangerous place. Nuclear weapons have actually ensured that it remains a lot less dangerous than it would otherwise be. They have ensured that World War 3 has not happened. Had nuclear weapons not been invented it would likely have broken out within a few years of the last war ending. It might even have broken out on the Korean peninsula.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are published at the absolute discretion of the owner of this blog, but there is a general presumption towards publication. This is a free speech blog.