Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Why Britain Needs Nuclear Weapons.

His argument is that Britain would be better able to support American foreign policy if it spent more money on conventional forces instead.

This is the very attitude which led to this outburst by Ernest Bevin :

"We've got to have this thing.

 I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the US as I have just been...

 We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ...

 We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

Ernest Bevin understood that the British people pay their taxes to further their own best interests,not those of the United States.

1 comment:

Brian Black said...

Would you sleep better knowing that the UK had the conventional capability to remove an enemy nuclear weapons fcillity, or a hostile regime before we faced a nuclear attack; or would you sleep better knowing that the UK had the capability to burn up a few thousand "enemy" civilians in retaliation for them having already done the same to us?

Our (and France's) balistic missiles are political tools used to justify a fading world power remaining at the UN's top table.

Besides, probably the biggest atomic threat we face comes from terrorist fanatics who aren't deterred by such grand weapons and who don't present viable targets for a nuclear retaliation.