Should Britain Keep its Nuclear Weapons? – Philosophy Tube

1. 

   @jimmy-sees-stars8166

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   Did they ever renew the bombs???

2. 

   @Joker-no1uh

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   Why react to any action then? That's literally what you're saying. Don't react if somebody hurts you, steals from you, etc. Maybe because everyone knows if you don't react, they will keep on doing it because there are no repercussions.

3. 

   @almiratlic8323

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   Here is my response:
   1. If there are no nukes, the chance of NATO attacking Russia as a result of the war in Ukraine would be much higher. Having the nukes is a safety belt for Russia. Could it be that nukes have prevented WWIII so far, not only now but during the Cold War as well?
   2. If some country, like in your example, throws a bomb on London and, in the process, kills about two million people, would non-response make the enemy think something like, "Hey, they are not responding, let's nuke them again". Would it be ok now to employ a generous (generous, because the UK did not respond on the first attack) tit-for-tat strategy (or some other form of TFT strategy)?
   3. Why renewing nukes? Are they useless? Or is it just a part of the game? If you can nuke a country with 10 "old" but functional bombs, you would still completely destroy the country (even as big as Russia because the concentration of population is in a relatively small part of western Russia). Britain has over 200 nukes. If half of that is operational, in some exchange with X country, it would be enough to bring the whole world to (almost) the end. In that scenario, we would get a nuclear winter with a thick cloud of smoke for about 10 years and various post-nuclear effects that would make life almost impossible. Surviving a nuclear attack would seem like a bad choice.

4. 

   @alessandropolo7257

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   soo… they renewed them?

5. 

   @DarthBorehd

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   Ukraine found out exactly what happens when a country gets rid of all their nuclear weapons.

6. 

   @wonderingalbatross2400

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   There are people with great ideals but Consider what happened to Ukraine, those people are putting way too much trust in people like Putin; What situation could be worse than the biggest bullies are the only people in the classroom who have the weapons, everyone else is unarmed and can't count on institutions for help? There aren't organisms to put countries in jail, and ruling elites in those bad polities got too much power and wealth to get away from things way too easily. I think until a workaround is found and before the arrival of utopia, violence, and threat might be unpalatable but need a final safeguard and effective language that dictators, fascists, nazi, and racists could understand; I think losing the arms race against those bad people or polity is disastrous.

   I don't know whether those people are naive or I just don't understand them.

7. 

   @lolicanadian

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   I, personally, want to keep a small, manageable cache of nuclear weapons around not for defence or deterrence, but as a potential solution to an unknown, unforeseen, future problem that only the power of a nuke can solve—in other words, the "peaceful" use of nuclear weapons. That is the "official" excuse that I would put forward; my actual reason, though, has nothing to do with any of this and everything to do with wanting to possess the power to annihilate entire cities at the push of a button. "To make the world tremble in fear", is the only reason why anyone should ever want to own nukes.

8. 

   @couldntcareless7884

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   Well, the Putin joke aged really “well”

9. 

   @Fishtory

   February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

   All i have to say is North Korea… No one is invading them anytime soon…. same with UK. But I agree with most your points still.

10. 

    @ignaciomartinez6245

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Ctrl+F "game theory"
    Not found

11. 

    @nellgwyn2723

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    First of all: I am in favour of global disarmament. But i do believe that the discussion people are actually having about nuclear weapons is not about using them but about who has them. It is about being similarly dangerous in order to not be pushed around – which from a european perspective sounds ridiculous but on the other hand countries constantly do break laws and mess with others. Nukes do not prevent that in any way but that does not stop the concern that without them one is at risk of being bullied into compluance by a nuclear armed nation. This bullying happens all the time anyways, bigger nations like russia, america and china constantly get caught blatantly doing what they want, but of course that fear lingers that it will get worse with them gaving nuclear weapons and others not. It is a dangerous game of threat deterents that does not work and where any small mistake can cost millions and millions of lives, but no nation will agree to step out first.

    Edit: nukes are basically our mutual 'don't tread on me' tramp stamp: embarassing, a mistake from the start and no actual deterent for anything but in the current climate nobody wants to be the first to get rid of it out of fear to show weakness.

12. 

    @thehighnoonsaloon7794

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Did the prime minister watch?

13. 

    @richardsharpe5925

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    These are ridiculous and erroneous statements, the atomic bomb saved many American lives, the Hydrogen bomb helps to show the world that war is futile. Yes you can utilise a nuclear weapon against China, the latter would respond in kind. Nuclear weapons pay their way everyday by ensuring the casualties of the Great War are not seen again. Also the British public should remember, our country being a nuclear power helps us politically given it helps us maintain our position as a permanent of the UN Security Council. Everyday our nuclear weapons, and the brave men and women who crew the submarines pay their way not in money but in helping to secure the security of the UK. 'The safety of the people is the supreme law'

14. 

    @Bluestarr

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Aren’t a lot of nuclear weapons based in Scotland? So that may be a reason a back up Scotland would be needed, it accidentally be destroyed.

15. 

    @SIDEKICKDUSTY

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    I know it's weird to leave a comment like this on an old video, but does anyone know if the clip of the countdown in the opening is the source of the sample that begins The The's classic song "I've been Waiting for Tomorrow All of My Life"

16. 

    @XxRedCooperxX

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Disarmament doesn't actually eliminate deterrence. For one thing, your enemies would be wise to be doubtful about whether you actually got rid off all your weapons grade nuclear material. Even if you did, (given the requirement for enrichment facilities even in many civilian applications) any nuclear-capable country is never more than a year away from building a bomb. So getting rid of the current stockpile and writing laws against using nukes really just makes it harder to retaliate; you would have to change the law of your country, or break it, and then spend a few months enriching uranium before you could swing back. I think it's good to put that high of a barrier on that serious of a decision.

17. 

    @TheLostArchangel161

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Yes prime minister.

18. 

    @shannonparkhill5557

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    A backup Scotland haha!

19. 

    @Nyoronette

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    The US has over 4000. And there are people who still want more, at great expense. Sometimes I wonder what goes on in their heads. Are they imagining a scenario in which we use all 4000, run out, and still need more? At that point, we'd all be dead.

20. 

    @davewolfy2906

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    There is nothing philosophical about the obvious waste of an education.

21. 

    @radordekeche947

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    4:05, have you ever watched Yes Prime Minister? I thought you were quoting "The Grand Design" there.

    Personally, I think a nuclear threat is the only way to reliably create world peace. If one side has nukes, then anyone can attack with impunity. If no on has nukes, then war is reasonable. If both? Then the aggressor risks being attacked. I feel the answer is simpler; get rid of the military. With no military, but nukes, then no nation can reasonably justify attacking you. If enough nations disarm, then the remaining nations would be pressured to get rid of their now useless military.

22. 

    @BeastMasterNeil

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Ban the bomb… but to advocate for the devil, the purpose of retaliating against Kaboom is the same as the purpose of punching the school-yard bully back; so that Kaboom thinks twice before doing it again, and Bangland and Blastonia don't get any upity ideas about punching you too. Personally, I think all nukes should be handed over to the UN, and their possession and use by other entities criminalised. There needs to be an adult in the playground.

23. 

    @diablominero

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    On reflection and after learning more about nuclear weapons:
    The nation of Kaboom sent you one nuke. *One*. So a large part of your country is still alive, and if Kaboom had enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium to have more right now, they'd have sent you more. But making one isn't much easier than making ten. Kaboom is probably a few months away from sending you a bunch more nukes, and you're going to roll over and take it because "how does it benefit you to respond in kind."
    It benefits you if you knock out Kaboom's ability to make more nuclear weapons and kill the rest of your people. Uranium centrifuges and breeder reactors are fragile, and a big detonation will break them. Uranium mines could be destroyed. The infrastructure needed to deliver bombs to launch pads could be broken. Nuclear engineers can be killed; they may not all be in the bunker. You could break all Kaboomese information technology with an EMP from a space detonation to slow down the communication needed for development of more bombs. But no, you want to roll over and take more nukes in a couple months like fools.
    If the USA or Russia nukes you, you're screwed no matter what you do. But an emerging nuclear power with a handful of warheads could be stopped from emerging and attacking any more with a devastating counterattack.

24. 

    @samhunter6141

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    2:54 the whole point of mutualy assured destruction is that it never gets to that point. however i must admit it dosen't benifit you its not meant to

    edit:
    3:19 the idea of a future in which both sides lose is enough to prevent either from laumching the nukes in the first place

25. 

    @aleczitzelberger8123

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    A reprisal strike prevents the aggressor from being able to muster the power to invade you after their own strike. They can’t take advantage of being the aggressor if their own country is falling apart.

26. 

    @hdh7365

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    The thing is though that they might be fake nucular weapons, they wouldnt tell us if they where fake.

27. 

    @diablominero

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    I think if there are going to be nuclear weapons in the world, they should be held by at least two countries that don't particularly like each other in order to keep anyone from getting nukes and using the threat of them to conquer everyone. But you need a few one- to ten-kiloton devices on each side for that. There's no need for anyone to have 50-megaton Tsar Bombas or hundreds of smaller ones. And once one of your allies and one of their enemies has nukes, you don't need to.

28. 

    @evelienheerens2879

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    If the last 2 years of US politics have thaught me anything, it's that you can't trust in the narrative of 'good guy countries'. You can't trust in elected world leaders reasonable benevolence when it comes to whether or not to destroy the lives of innocent civilians or taking megalomaniacal action.

    If mutually assured destruction is the goal. Then it would be better to form an independent Organ, much like Nato, In control of a small nuclear arsenal. Whose only job would be to nuke any country that uses nuclear weapons aggressively. Every nation joining in on nuclear disarmament could join this organisation and have a measure of oversight. It would incentivise the disarmament and be a lot less expensive as a much smaller cache of nuclear weapons would be required.

29. 

    @Lace7Drk

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    What happened?

30. 

    @chrismain3968

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Bravo for putting Kaboom between Iraq and A Hard Place!

31. 

    @lh4736

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    About to have an A Level Politics debate on this tomorrow and this video is definitely gonna give me an upper hand so thanks

32. 

    @dvol

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Look up "Broken Arrow" incidents in the US. You downplayed the risk of an accident, but we've actually come shockingly close… Similarly, there was a Soviet officer who thought he saw a launch, and decided not to counterattack, and later confirmed that it was a mistake and there was no launch; if that one guy hasn't second-guessed his instruments, we might have already had a nuclear war.

    I actually do think deterrence is important enough to keep nukes around. Even if we'd never use them in a second strike capacity, no one has so far called that bluff — no nuclear power has yet been invaded without first disarming their nukes. But this has been covered enough by other comments, and I don't think people are talking the associated risks seriously enough.

33. 

    @fabschalkson2529

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    When ever I hear this killing civilians is bad arguments I am left wondering what the diference in moral value of civilians and non civilians is, since most people agree that killing civilians is worse than killing non civilians. I am genuinly curious esp. if you consider civilians, people that became soldiars out of requirerment, people that chose to become soldiars and people who are in charge in the military. If someone has opinions or arguments or generally something to say about this please let me know.

34. 

    @scottmason2308

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    I really don’t like you

35. 

    @BharCode09

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    I don't know about UK, I'm an Indian and I know how important our Nukes for us (we're sandwiched between Pakistan and China duh!!). Most of our foreign policy has been a success bcz of our Nukes. Of course with a great track record as a responsible Possessor… Big fives thought only they've the moral right to keep Nukes bcz only their citizens lives matter unlike other country's only they need to deter. But once there is an existence of even a single Nuclear power the entire world feels unsafe (at least after the real demonstration US did on Japan in WW2) and every country needs to have that deterrent to save their sovereign power. N-Korea would have been Vietnam/Afghan hadn't it had Nuclear power. .
    If it needs to be disarmed, it should be GLOBAL! Not unlike only some elite will posses it, as if they're the saviors of the world. The world knows from all the ways who messed and are still messing with the world…

36. 

    @borkolli

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    It's not remove our weapons or renew them can't we keep the old ones and just not renew them

37. 

    @happygoloopyrocks

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    Could you talk more about the idea of a completely impartial (or in this case nonpartisan) information distribution service? Is distributing information ever impartial or are all choices of what to include inherently based on your own/institutional persuasion?

38. 

    @davidnaylor7959

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    This aged well.

39. 

    @scottmason6310

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    I bet your mummy is proud of you….

40. 

    @johntanner1528

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    I assume May has?

41. 

    @jacobvardy

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    My understanding i that nukes are for existential threats to the state. The population is a just a resource to be husbanded. Not people to be protected.

    Its wwhat Israel calls the Sampson doctrine. "If i'm going down i'm taking you all with me". If the Arab states defeat the State of Israel, it will destroy them aswell. The leaders might be safe but there won't be anything for them to lead left. South Africa had them for the same reason. And does North Korea – if the US attacks, the DPRK will nuke Seoul and Tokyo, destroying the world economy.

    I presume the same goes for the UK. If the state of Kabloom launches a few thousand nukes at the British Isles, the UK returns the favour. The leaders of both states probably survive but they haven't got anything left to rule. Having nukes is a way for leaders of states to say to leaders of other states "either we both get to play or neither of us do".

42. 

    @Surfer8652

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    4:20 How do you know that Britain isn't bluffing with its nukes? As you said, the country's leadership would have to convince everyone that they were ready to use them, so we don't really know if they're bluffing or not. We also don't know if the nukes are even real. A successful bluff would require convincing everyone that they're real, and part of that would also require reporting realistically high production and maintenance costs.

43. 

    @stephenbond2478

    February 18, 2026 at 8:08 am

    The Vanguard/Trident program is very costly, but MAD seems to have actually worked since ? but scale it back !

Comments are closed.