All Episodes
Previous Next
June 3, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
08:06
The Nuclear Deterrent
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I got a new GoPro camera that I'm going to take to VidCon and I thought I'd give it a try, see how it is.
Go out for a walk and test it out.
I ended up in a nice area.
Anyway, so I thought I would talk about the nuclear deterrent, which I've seen very many Labour supporters decrying as if this is some sort of evil weapon that we shouldn't have.
And it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.
To start with, military technology increases exponentially over time.
The destructive capacity of humans has always increased and it always will increase.
So you have to have it.
There's just no getting around it.
Secondly, mutually assured destruction is the only thing preventing great nations from going to war.
It is, as we speak now, saving millions and millions of lives.
Because other people have nuclear weapons, that means that we must also have them.
Not only for our own protection, but for the protection of others.
Jeremy Corbyn's reticence in this regard, to say, yes, I would strike back if some nuclear-armed power decided to attack us first is shocking.
Yeah, you've talked to these people in the past.
You talked earlier on when we talked about the nuclear option.
Talking is the way you want to go.
David often said at the end of programmes, telling the public to press the red button.
Are you saying you will never ever, under any circumstances, press a red button?
I think we've discussed this at some length about the aspirations we all have.
I do not want to be responsible for destruction of millions of people.
Neither do you.
Therefore, we have to work for war when they're not available and not used.
Corbyn, you should be ashamed.
You must understand that as the leader of a nation, you are going to have to make decisions that are not moral, but instead are ethical.
You will be forced into a position at some point where you have to do something you don't want to do.
And that either way, regardless of the decision you make, there is no decision that won't cost lives.
That is a fact of leadership.
That is what it is to rule.
You have to understand that.
If, say, Iran were to launch nuclear weapons at us and we said, you know what, we're not going to nuke them in return because we'll kill millions of people.
Not only will we be eradicated, we will also have deliberately left an aggressive nation with the power and capacity to wipe out other nations unmolested and free to do it to someone else.
Someone who cannot retaliate.
You do not know what they will do after we are gone, but if they can unilaterally strike us with no repercussions, why wouldn't they do it to someone else?
If we let a nuclear-armed nation nuke us out of existence, and we do not retaliate in kind and nuke them out of existence as well, then they will be free to do this again to someone else.
Even though we will all be dead, and it won't matter to us, it will matter to the people who are also going to die because they will look around and go, well, we can just strike someone else then, can't we?
If there are no repercussions to us hitting people with the most destructive weaponry that has ever been invented and possibly ever will be invented, then what can we not do?
You have to take action.
Yes, we will die.
Yes, their people will die.
But unfortunately, that's what happens when their people prop up a government that will first strike another country with nukes.
You can't do anything about it.
It's life, unfortunately.
These are the hard decisions you have to make, you spineless coward.
Okay?
You have a responsibility to your own people to make sure that they will be protected.
And the best way to do that is to make sure that leaders and other nations know they can't just strike you with nukes and get away with it.
If we let them nuke us and we take no action in response, then there was no point us even doing anything.
And this brings us back to the point about mutually assured destruction.
If they know that we are prepared to strike back, not strike first, idiots.
I'm speaking specifically to Labour voters, who I saw on the BBC Question Time hashtag were...
Oh my god, you want loads of people to die in a nuclear firestorm.
No, not really.
But if one's coming our way, we are ethically bound to retaliate.
We have no choice.
It is our moral duty to make sure that such a nation is incapable of striking someone else, especially when it's in our power.
And they know that we will respond in kind.
So whatever tinpot dictator is holding his hand over the button, you might think, you know what, this is actually suicide.
This is, if I press this button, I will end up dying.
So maybe I won't press this button.
And it is the knowledge that we will return in kind what they do to us that will stay their hand and prevent the fiery death of everyone.
Nuclear weapons have been a phenomenally good thing for the world.
Believe it or not.
So regardless of how you personally feel about this on an emotional level, the facts are that nuclear weapons have been a phenomenally good thing for the planet.
Because the best way to ensure that someone acts in the way you want is to appeal directly to their self-interest.
Appealing directly to someone's self-interest is the best way to guarantee you will get the result out of them that you want.
This is why we have nukes.
This is why we'll have to keep the nukes.
And this is why other countries are trying to get nukes.
And if we don't actually use them, we at least have the ethical duty to make sure that our enemies think that we will use them.
As long as our enemies believe that we will respond in kind, they will not act.
They will not fire.
They will leave us alone and we will leave them alone.
And that is surely better than not being sure that our enemies will not simply destroy us out of the blue.
I'm sure that the people who support Jeremy Corbyn and who wish nuclear disarmament are good people.
I'm sure they have the best intentions.
But you are asking for something that will never, ever happen.
It's like saying, why doesn't society simply abandon the car and go back to the horse and carriage?
They're not going to do it because a horse and carriage is not as effective at what it's supposed to do as a car.
The same with nuclear weapons.
They're too useful.
They're too effective.
They are capable of protecting us through psychology.
The great thing about having nuclear weapons is that having them means we don't have to use them.
Not having them means that someone else might use them.
It's almost embarrassing watching Labour supporters and MPs making appeals to emotion, saying, oh, you just want people to die in a fiery holocaust.
No, it's the fact that we have these things that means that people won't die in a fiery holocaust.
And I do think it's important to remember that nuclear weapons are preventing people in their millions from dying to bullets, bombs and artillery shells.
It is a good thing to have them and we must keep them.
And since we have them, we must make sure that our enemies know that we will fucking use them if they even look at us wrong.
I know that you are well-intentioned people, but you must also be smart people.
You must understand international politics.
You must understand the immutable laws of war.
We will always need the best weaponry, because if we don't have it, our enemies will have it and they will use it on us.
Because weakness is provocation.
▲
Export Selection