Friday - March 16, 2007

Category Image

Britain Barely Renews its Nuclear Arsenal


Or What Happens When a People Will Not Defend Themselves?

America, over that last few months, has been asking, why doesn't the left want to defend their own country?  Why does the left oppose the use of military force even in the face of a minimal enemy?  There is a core constituency of the Democratic party that seemingly cannot imagine that force is sometimes necessary in a very hostile world.  To see where this far left self-absorption, this naiveté, this narcissism, and this inability to discern that there are real threats to national security can lead, we need look no further than our ally, Great Britain.

Just this week, Tony Blair brought before Parliament, a measure to modernize Britain's nuclear arsenal.  The Labour Party, which has a 67 seat majority in Parliament, had 85 members revolt and as a result, Blair had to depend upon the Conservative Party for the measure to pass. 

Listen to some of the leftists who voted against upgrading Britain's nuclear deterrent:

 "We must lead the world in campaigning for the eradication of the nuclear threat and we must lead by example," said Nigel Griffiths, one of four Labour politicians who quit their junior government posts this week to vote against the plan.

and
"Our decision could well be the hinge point between real impetus towards stopping proliferation or a trigger leading to a cascade of further proliferation...," said Michael Meacher, a left-wing Labour legislator who will challenge for the party leadership when Blair goes.
Reuters also included this commentary in their coverage:

But a deep hostility to nuclear weapons runs through the Labour Party, which espoused unilateral nuclear disarmament until the late 1980s.


Many Labour legislators think they are being rushed into a decision before Blair resigns, that there is no longer any justification for nuclear defences in a post-Cold War world and that the huge cost could be better spent elsewhere.

and

But opponents say Britain no longer needs weapons to deter an attack from a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, and by renewing the arsenal it would become harder to persuade countries such as Iran and North Korea to forsake nuclear weapons.



This is the same movement, as Reuters noted, that opposed Reagan and Thatcher when Pershing II missiles were installed in Europe to counter the new and deadly Soviet SS-20 medium range missiles during the 1980s.  The same people who wanted to unilaterally disarm in the face of Soviet aggression learned nothing from history.  It was only by building and deploying the Pershing II missiles, that the Soviets were forced to come to the bargaining table and negotiate the INF Treaty. Yes, by standing firm, an enemy was forced to negotiate and end to intermediate missiles in Europe.  Would the Soviets have scrapped their missiles if the West had surrendered to the peace offensive? 

How can the left walk away from the Pershing II missile deployment and the Soviet Peace Offensive and come to the conclusion that unilateral disarmament is a sane, useful, or even rational approach in the face of aggressive and hostile enemies?  Unilateral disarmament doesn't set an example for your enemies.  It doesn't make them think you are nice people.  It tells them that you are weak.

What happens to a nation that ignores reality and is unwilling to defend itself?  The far left, whether in the U.S. or Britain, is a threat to the survival of Western civilization.

Technorati Tags
Posted: Friday - March 16, 2007 at 06:40 PM
       
| View blog reactions |