I haven’t followed the production of nuclear arms in detail, but this one point has always struck me; countries that already have tons of weapons continue to develop and replace the old nuclear weapons rather than phase them out, the entire time chastising any other developing country that even mentions the word “nuclear.” Mind you, I’m not saying everyone should be able to develop nuclear weapons, but I fail to understand how the continued development and proliferation of “weapons of mass destruction” can be rationalized by politicians in the US and England. What’s all the hubub about this time? Tony Blair is hoping to “renew Britain’s missile nuclear deterrent” by replacing aging Trident nuclear subs. Blair feebly attempted to justify his stance with the following jumble of words;
I think that is essential for our security in an uncertain world. I believe it is important that we recognize that although it is impossible to predict the future, the one thing… that is certain, is the unpredictability of it.
Wow, that’s really deep, man. We need to all, like, protect ourselves from the future and junk. This is worse than when the color-coded national security alerts were implemented and government officials would appear in front of a podium and say “I don’t know where, I don’t know when, but something bad is going to happen.” So what good are more nuclear weapons going to do? I really don’t understand how the further development and proliferation of powerful “deterrents” are going to benefit anybody, especially when their intended use is to vaporize millions of people and irradiate the landscape.