Log in

No account? Create an account
Eroticdreambattle [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Keeping Trident [Mar. 15th, 2007|11:35 am]
Tony Grist
The first thing one has to understand is just how vulnerable the powerful feel themselves to be. 

After all, they're no different from you and me and look how paranoid we are and with much less reason.

They're all of them, always, just one cat-call away from falling to pieces. 

They're like prey animals animals foraging out in the open. A moving shadow, a rustle in the bushes and they take fright and run.

Or maybe freeze and bare their teeth or roll into a ball and show their prickles.

Poor sweethearts.  Poor, fuzzy, little, fluffy things. Poor, fuzzy, little, fluffy things that have to pretend to the world and even to themselves that they're actually lions. 

Of course they have their territory. That's something. Their comfort zone. They have it all marked out.  It's not where they feel safe- because they never feel safe- but it's where they feel safer.  

So imagine how freaked they get when something in this landscape changes- when something is added or taken away. They barely understand the world as it is- can barely cope with it-  so please, please don't switch things round on them.

Take our rabbits.  We move an item of furniture, drop something on the floor and they immediately have to go all round the room, snuffling at the familiar landmarks, making sure they still know where they are.

And that's why the British Government is determined to keep Trident. At the most basic level it's not about fear of some hypothetical enemy,  It's about fear of suddenly finding oneself in an unfamiliar landscape and not knowing  where the burrow is.

[User Picture]From: solar_diablo
2007-03-15 01:34 pm (UTC)

Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle too long. Couple that with the very real certainty that states with (shall we say) less than stable governments are actively pursuing nuclear technology, and it's easier to understand why anyone is reluctant to give up even a redundant weapons system.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2007-03-15 03:19 pm (UTC)

Re: Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

A counter argument is that we can hardly preach against nuclear proliferation when we're updating our own systems.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: solar_diablo
2007-03-15 04:19 pm (UTC)

Re: Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

Oh, I make no excuses for that. It's certainly a "do as I say, not as I do" brand of politics. I'm merely saying that in a world where some states' behavior seems to indicate their belief that they have nothing to lose in an arms race/global thermonuclear war, other states are all the more reluctant to lead by example when it comes to disarmament.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2007-03-15 06:06 pm (UTC)

Re: Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

Well, I'm not suggesting the USA should disarm, because I know she won't, but mightn't it be interesting if a minor nuclear power like Britain were to opt out? It would be something that hasn't happened before and it could change the weather. On a purely parochial note it would mean that the billions of pounds that are going to be spent on the upgrading of trident could be spent on all sorts of other more worthwhile things.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)