Thursday, June 22, 2006

Yes, we are the good guys

The Curious Hamster has a post about Gordo's indiscretions.
So Gordon has announced that he wants the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent thus prejudging the "debate" we're all going to be allowed to have on this.

In this case, fuck the debate: we keep it.
Hurray! Is he Prime Minister already then?

Please, God, no, not ever.
If the UK government does make a policy decision to "retain" our nuclear deterrent and replace Trident with a new nuclear weapons system, will we also be withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Just a reminder of Article VI:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Disarmament will not mean that nobody has nuclear weapons. As I have said before—many, many months ago—if you wish to abolish nuclear weapons then you must kill (or wipe the memory of) every single person who has the faintest idea of how to make a nuclear weapon. And that means—at the very least—everyone who has taken Physics GCSE (I can't speak for the crappy Scottish system: rewiring a plug seems to be the extent of the Physics Higher).
The UK government surely couldn't simply be planning to ignore the provisions of this hugely important international treaty. I mean, to deliberately flaunt the spirit, and almost certainly the letter, of this treaty would make our government an international pariah, a rogue state with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. It would make a mockery of our obligations to the international community. The UN Security Council would undoubtedly have to impose some sort of sanctions...

I have a real problem with moralists. Now, what is it...? Oh, yes, it is their total inability to deal with the real world in any way whatsoever.
Oh, hang on. I forgot that we're the indisputable good guys.

Yes, we are: and we certainly are to us. Tell you what, CH, next time we hang some gays, or stone a raped woman or something equally pleasant, why not post a picture? Or why not bollock on about how the fucking sand-niggers are too primitive for democracy when 70% of them trudge fucking miles in order to vote?

Yes, we are the good guys, and as long as we have nuclear weaponry, who the hell is going to say otherwise? Would you prefer Iran or China as the world super-power? There's a load of things wrong with both the US and Britain, but are we better than Iran, Saudi, Iraq under Saddam or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Yup.

Because our principle is that of choice; these fucking authoritarian regimes are not. And will I pay for the nuclear weaponry to secure that superiority? Fucking right, and I consider it money better spent that buying methodone for some fucking crack-whore.

Don't the rules apply to us? No, they don't, because who else is going to police them? The UN? Don't make me fucking laugh...

7 comments:

Serf said...

Hear Fucking Hear.

The Moai said...

It's a bit of a leap from GSCE Physics to making a nuclear weapon. Most of the curriculum consists of melting ice in a bucket and playing with springs. Plug-wiring would have been useful.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Obviously GCSE Physics has gone downhill since I did it (though that would hardly be a surprise).

We were definitely taught how to wire a plug, and we were definitely taught the principles of how to make a nuclear bomb.

DK

Garry said...

In this case, fuck the debate: we keep it.

And I thought you were pro-democracy.

I think you've missed the point I was making though. You say I display a "total inability to deal with the real world in any way whatsoever" but all I was doing was pointing out the real world provisions of the treaty we actually signed (and demand that others follow).

Your rather heated response suggests that you are attempting to deny this real world treaty. Your point about nuclear knowledge could be made during negotiations to ammend the treaty but it doesn't affect what it currently says.

It says we are obligated to work towards, yes Ian, a "treaty on general and complete disarmament". We are not doing so, certainly not in good faith. We are in breach of the treaty. You, obviously disagree with this provision but again, that doesn't affect the real world matter of what it actually says.

My point is that many other governments signed the NNPT because of that commitment by the nuclear powers. When these other governments complain that we are being hypocrites, they are right to do so.

If we are to ignore the NNPT then we must withdraw from it or renegotiate it. To continue to flaunt this provision, and I accept that many people think we should, calls into question our "good guy" status in many other countries around the world. They signed it it good faith. To them, it looks like we did not. And they've got a point.

Anonymous said...

Call me old-fashioned and even properly educated but anybody who writes " . . . I mean, to deliberately flaunt the spirit . . " instead of " . . flout the spirit . ." has already lost the argument.

Garry said...

Yes, my entire point is invalid because a made a common error in the use of the English language. It's a fair cop...

Er, thanks for pointing it out all the same. I stand corrected. Flout the spirit it is.

Anonymous said...

Agreed - it was a bit OTT - pedantry got the better of me.

The very model of a modern scientific man

Your humble Devil was thoroughly amused by Neil Ferguson's fall from grace, and is very pleased to have found the time to outline Fergus...