|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
In the article:
Politically, Eddington's faith as a Quaker led him to be a supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament and an opponent of the Trident missile programme. It is likely he and Jim Hacker would have disagreed on this subject, as while Hacker says he "sometimes wonders" about whether nuclear weapons are necessary, "I'm not that unilateralist"!
It's been some time since I last saw this episode, but I seem to recall that he only said "I'm not that unilateralist" after Humphrey said "Then you must resign from the government!". Maybe he felt just threatened and softened his position for that reason. Any thoughts? René van Buuren 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I recall that the first episode of Yes, Prime Minister - Jim Hacker was against both Trident and Nuclear weapons (and Nuclear shelters) because they were pointless and really just used as a deterrant. (Perhaps it was an episode of Yes, Minister?) pebbens (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also recall that his opposition was because he, as prime minister, would never actually use the missles. One of the discussions went kind of like this: "Would you use them if the Soviets took over West Berlin in a crisis situation, saying that they'd leave eventually?" "Of course not!" "If they sent anti-riot troops into western europe to "help"?" "I doubt it." It went on like that until he realized that the Soviets would never actually give him a reason to use the missiles, even if they slowly invaded and took over the whole of continental Europe. The Soviets, you see, could find ways of "invading" without actually engaging in any individual action worthy of a preemptive nuclear strike. And any attempt to augment conventional forces with tactical strikes would precipitate an all out nuclear war. So there was no need for British nuclear weapons in the first place. Indeed, they didn't even provide a proper deterrent, because the American nukes already provided that. The Poseidon and Trident missiles were therefore completely redundant, and could be scrapped at any time without repercussions to Britain's self-defense capabilities.
- It was an interesting discussion, if incomplete (presenting the complete arguments on the topic would take longer than the few minutes they had in the show;).
- In any case, the pertinent thing up for discussion was whether or not Hacker supported unilateral disarmament: he did. He even made a major drive to cancel Trident, but was stymied by Humphrey. — Gopher65talk 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Paul-Eddington-book.jpg
Image:Paul-Eddington-book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)