Nuclear thinking

I would like Britain to keep its independent nuclear deterrent, largely because I don’t trust the French. I would also like the USA to have a very large amount of brand new and extremely efficient nuclear weapons – those really big ones that can destroy the earth – and China, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to have none whatsoever. I am not sure yet about Russia: maybe they could have a few, to point in the direction of the Pankisi Gorge. Israel is allowed lots, India is allowed lots, but I would ask both countries not to use them unless absolutely necessary and in any case to check with me first. This, then, is the view I will take if I am ever elected to the United Nations Security Council, perhaps in place of Geri Halliwell or Bono. It is, as I’m sure you are already aware, the view of a partisan cretin and both morally and intellectually unjustifiable. So, no change there then. I mean no change with the UN Security Council, not no change with my blog although I suppose the same charge applies.

The only two issues which concern the security council right now are 1)Stop Iran building itself a bomb and b)Stop terrorists buying cut-price ex Soviet nukes. The genuflection in the direction of genuine multilateral disarmament is an embarrassing sham and Iran knows full well it is a sham, which is why it will continue the process of enriching its uranium. Giving up one Trident submarine is a particularly fatuous (and self-serving) genuflection. There are only two approaches which will work: the first is to decommission all nuclear weapons, everywhere, beginning with Israel’s. The second is to drop any pretence at moral or intellectual justification and to tell Iran and North Korea that they are not allowed nuclear weapons because they are Iran and North Korea and to back up this stricture with the threat of overwhelming force. Both of these approaches would be more honest – and thus more achievable, because people are not fools – than the “historic” concorde arrived at by the UN this week.