Trident

[Batman]

Going to be renewed isnt it

 

good stuff

[aintforever]

Complete waste of money, relic of the cold war.

 

Would be better off targeting terrorism and insurgency in places we've ****ed up.

[mack rill]

We do not need this anymore, money best spent else where,

[Window Cleaner]

Complete waste of money, relic of the cold war.

 

Would be better off targeting terrorism and insurgency in places we've ****ed up.

 

 

Probably. Since the advent of Nuclear Deterents the Yanks have lost 3 or 4 wars, the French 2, the Russians 1 (or 2) and the UK prevailed in a minor skirmish and came up short twice when aiding and abetting the Yanks. No point in having the technology if you can't use it.

[Batman]

Probably. Since the advent of Nuclear Deterents the Yanks have lost 3 or 4 wars, the French 2, the Russians 1 (or 2) and the UK prevailed in a minor skirmish and came up short twice when aiding and abetting the Yanks. No point in having the technology if you can't use it.

 

but avoided nuclear war. so they say

[Window Cleaner]

but avoided nuclear war. so they say

 

With whom exactly ?

[badgerx16]

Why do we have it ? To deter ISIS ? It sure came in handy in the 2 Gulf wars, the overthrow of Ghadaffi, and the Balkan conflict. It's a drain on the military budget that would be better spent on beefing up the surface fleet.

[badgerx16]

We do not need this anymore, money best spent else where,

 

Bloody heck - a sensible skate.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'd like to think that we've outgrown it.

[Batman]

I'd like to think that we've outgrown it.

 

along with everyone else........

 

 

oh

 

 

the GMB union has come out and backed the renewal of Trident and slammed Corbyn for voting against it.

Edited 18 July, 2016 by Batman

[Lighthouse]

Sadly, with the likes of China and Russia having nukes, we need our own deterrent to be taken seriously when it comes to military affairs. Yes it's useless against the likes of ISIS but that was never the point.

[badgerx16]

 

the GMB union has come out and backed the renewal of Trident and slammed Corbyn for voting against it.

Only to be expected - "protecting" members' jobs in the defence industry.

[aintforever]

Sadly, with the likes of China and Russia having nukes, we need our own deterrent to be taken seriously when it comes to military affairs. Yes it's useless against the likes of ISIS but that was never the point.

 

Really? I'm not sure what either would have to gain by having a war with us. Has either ever tried to invade us?

 

Sure we don't ever know what is around the corner but is blowing £30+ billion on some new nukes seems madness to me. Today's world is so so different to WW2 days, we should invest in more relevant defence. Chances are our next military involvement will be fighting insurgents somewhere in the Middle East, best spend money on the best equipment available for our troops, more special forces, drones, apaches etc.

Edited 18 July, 2016 by aintforever

[Whitey Grandad]

Sadly, with the likes of China and Russia having nukes, we need our own deterrent to be taken seriously when it comes to military affairs. Yes it's useless against the likes of ISIS but that was never the point.

 

But does it have to be Ballistic Missiles? Would air-launched or cruise missiles be as effective a deterrent?

[Batman]

But does it have to be Ballistic Missiles? Would air-launched or cruise missiles be as effective a deterrent?

 

not really at all.

[Saint in Paradise]

I think that this should be the last time it is re-newed as by the time it's out of date again I feel the money then

saved will be better used combating the future threats as mentioned above by others. Of course if the UK Govt. stopped

wasting so much money on aiding foreign Govts a lot more money would be available for UK use now.

[spyinthesky]

Question is, when Scotland get independence and, bearing in mind all bar one of their MP's voted against renewal of Trident, where will the home base be located when Mrs Krankie kicks out the subs?

[Lighthouse]

Really? I'm not sure what either would have to gain by having a war with us. Has either ever tried to invade us?

 

Sure we don't ever know what is around the corner but is blowing £30+ billion on some new nukes seems madness to me. Today's world is so so different to WW2 days, we should invest in more relevant defence. Chances are our next military involvement will be fighting insurgents somewhere in the Middle East, best spend money on the best equipment available for our troops, more special forces, drones, apaches etc.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a Europe where a man like Putin had nukes and we didn't. You only have to look at how much respect he has for Ukrainian sovereignty and their fair and independent elections.

 

I doubt landing craft full of Russian tanks would be turning up on the beaches of East Anglia any time soon, but there are enough TU-95s hovering around the edges of our airspace for me to think we need a big weapon. Was it FDR who said, "tread softly and carry a big stick"?

 

The problem with a nuclear deterrent is that the time to produre one is fair greater than the actual warning that you might need one. It's not about countering the threat we face now, it's about being ready for any eventuality.

[Whitey Grandad]

Question is, when Scotland get independence and, bearing in mind all bar one of their MP's voted against renewal of Trident, where will the home base be located when Mrs Krankie kicks out the subs?

 

We could keep a sovereign base (with agreement). We have two in Cyprus.

[Plastic]

I object to nuclear weapons on a moral level. They do not act as a deterrent to most modern threats (fundamentalism, state sponsored terrorism, rogue states), and if, for whatever reason (most likely a computer glitch or radar false-positive) Russia decided to launch nuclear weapons at us, I for one would feel no better about it just because we had the ability to retaliate in kind, and murder tens of thousands of innocent people.

I wouldn't want to use them under any circumstance. Who would? Only a monster or a fool imo.

[Plastic]

but avoided nuclear war. so they say

 

That's spurious logic

[Lighthouse]

I object to nuclear weapons on a moral level. They do not act as a deterrent to most modern threats (fundamentalism, state sponsored terrorism, rogue states), and if, for whatever reason (most likely a computer glitch or radar false-positive) Russia decided to launch nuclear weapons at us, I for one would feel no better about it just because we had the ability to retaliate in kind, and murder tens of thousands of innocent people.

I wouldn't want to use them under any circumstance. Who would? Only a monster or a fool imo.

 

You're not getting the point of a deterrent. Russia would never launch nukes at us, knowing we had them too, that's the whole concept of mutually assured distruction. Put it this way, if you were in Downing St. With your finger on the red button, would you ever launch it at Russia? It's the same for them.

[whelk]

I object to nuclear weapons on a moral level. They do not act as a deterrent to most modern threats (fundamentalism, state sponsored terrorism, rogue states), and if, for whatever reason (most likely a computer glitch or radar false-positive) Russia decided to launch nuclear weapons at us, I for one would feel no better about it just because we had the ability to retaliate in kind, and murder tens of thousands of innocent people.

I wouldn't want to use them under any circumstance. Who would? Only a monster or a fool imo.

 

Japanese would still be fighting if it wasn't for them.

 

And regarding 'making you feel better' - you don't really follow the deterrent argument.

[whelk]

We should just pretend to renew it and keep the cash and hope no one calls our bluff.

[Batman]

That's spurious logic

 

It is probably reality

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I was once a supporter of our nuclear deterrent but have over time become increasingly sceptical as its real utility in this post Cold War era. Furthermore, the extreme costs involved in renewing the RN's nuclear armed submarines will clearly be detrimental to what remains of our conventional defences.

 

The record shows that the 'Successor' programme might be a enormous £41bn project if the contingency fund is spent - all of which must for the first time come specifically from the defence budget rather than via a special HM Treasury fund as in the past. There is I think a good case that NATO still requires nuclear weapons in this uncertain world - whether the UK can either afford, or for that matter really needs, to duplicate that US provided capabilty is another question.

[Plastic]

You're not getting the point of a deterrent. Russia would never launch nukes at us, knowing we had them too

 

So they would launch them at us if we didn't have them?

 

Japanese would still be fighting if it wasn't for them.

 

That's highly debatable. Japan were pretty much beaten. There is an argument to say the use of nuclear bombs was a demonstration of strength to Russia rather than necessity. The Japanese had been throughly dehumanised in the minds of the allies by this point

 

And regarding 'making you feel better' - you don't really follow the deterrent argument.

The concept of a deterrent is not overly complex. If we are not going to use them even if provoked, then what is the point in having them?

 

It is probably reality

 

I think the responsibility associated with killing millions of innocents is what has stayed the hands of those in charge, rather than the thought that the other side may retaliate.

 

I know the canary is left wing, but you have to ask yourselves who benefits from Russia an us spending billions? Turns out its banks and MP's with vested interests.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/18/truth-trident-shocking-fact-turn-us-paying-nukes/

Edited 19 July, 2016 by Plastic

[Whitey Grandad]

That's highly debatable. Japan were pretty much beaten. There is an argument to say the use of nuclear bombs was a demonstration of strength to Russia rather than necessity. The Japanese had been throughly dehumanised in the minds of the allies by this point

 

The Russians agreed to enter the war against Japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany and indeed commenced operations on 8th August (between the two bombs) and I'm sure the Americans wanted Japan to be defeated before the Russians established any influence in the area. The invasion of Okinawa was so costly that the US balked at invading Japan itself. Morally, I'm in two minds about this. The firebombing of Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands and I struggle to see the difference between dropping one bomb or hundred. They all kill indiscriminately. The question we should be asking, I suppose, is whether Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor if America had had nuclear bombs at the time.

[Weston Super Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36831308

 

This is why a nuclear deterrent / nuclear capability is still required.

 

Russia, The US, Europe and everyone else with a nuclear capability understands the consequences that would follow just one nuclear missile launch - mutually assured destruction. The crackpot in charge of North Korea probably doesn't give a monkey's what would happen and certainly wouldn't care if his own citizens were wiped out!

[Fatboy40]

Going to be renewed isnt it

 

good stuff

 

I was under the impression that it had already been renewed, some when in the late 00's ?

 

I need to double check but I think this vote was pretty much just a vote of confidence and in no way effects the previous decisions made ? (and this is partly why Labour were against the vote occurring, as it can and will be used as a stick to beat them with ?)

[Fatboy40]

Some useful links...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/mar/14/immigrationpolicy.military

[Fatboy40]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36831308

 

This is why a nuclear deterrent / nuclear capability is still required.

 

Personally I don't believe it is. In his dream world Kim in king and I'm not sure how threatened he feels by a weapons system that no 'sane' individual would ever use ?

 

However without our own nuclear weapon systems we can't be part of the nuclear club with the USA / Russia etc., they allow us to punch well above our weight globally (as does our respected legal system + other military assets, but as time goes by these are becoming diluted and weaker, one reason why military spending needs to be maintained if we want to have influence).

[Whitey Grandad]

Personally I don't believe it is. In his dream world Kim in king and I'm not sure how threatened he feels by a weapons system that no 'sane' individual would ever use ?

 

However without our own nuclear weapon systems we can't be part of the nuclear club with the USA / Russia etc., they allow us to punch well above our weight globally (as does our respected legal system + other military assets, but as time goes by these are becoming diluted and weaker, one reason why military spending needs to be maintained if we want to have influence).

 

And gives us a seat on the UN Security Council.

[Plastic]

The question we should be asking, I suppose, is whether Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor if America had had nuclear bombs at the time.

I can't argue against this point.

[buctootim]

The question we should be asking, I suppose, is whether Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor if America had had nuclear bombs at the time.

 

The nuclear MAD strategy is dependent on potential attackers thinking rationally.

 

The US was far bigger and more powerful. Attacking them was a bizarre, unnecessary thing to do which ensured Japan's defeat. That attack was illogical and suicidal but still happened. Arguably nukes would have made no difference

[badgerx16]

If Russia is a threat to the UK then surely it is just as big a threat to Germany. How does Germany deter the Bear ? Where is their MIRV arsenal stored ?

[Lighthouse]

The nuclear MAD strategy is dependent on potential attackers thinking rationally.

 

The US was far bigger and more powerful. Attacking them was a bizarre, unnecessary thing to do which ensured Japan's defeat. That attack was illogical and suicidal but still happened. Arguably nukes would have made no difference

 

The Japanese high command knew they had 6 months to run riot in the Pacific before the US managed to properly gear up its naval capability. Their plan was to pretty much push America out of the Pacific in this period of time, so that they would eventually sue for peace. As a military strategy it was actually quite well thought out and might have succeeded had the battle of Midway panned out differently. The fact that the American aircraft carriers were out on a training operation when the Japanese attacked Pearl was also a major stroke of luck.

 

Nukes absolutely would have made a difference, just look at how the war ended. Japan went from 'no surrender, every last man must fight to the death to defend the homeland' to unconditional surrender in 3 days, between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[buctootim]

Their plan was to pretty much push America out of the Pacific in this period of time, so that they would eventually sue for peace.

 

It was a bizarre strategy that was never going to work. It would have been politically impossible for the US to sue for peace after an attack by a smaller country on US home soil. The losses weren't that big a deal. Britain lost more ships and men at the Battle of Jutland than the US did at Pearl Harbour - and that was considered a victory.

 

The use of nukes at the end of the war is a totally different situation. The point was about if nukes would have prevented that war. They wouldnt.

Edited 19 July, 2016 by buctootim

[Lighthouse]

It was a bizarre strategy that was never going to work. It would have been politically impossible for the US to sue for peace after an attack by a smaller country on US home soil.

 

The use of nukes at the end of the war is a totally different situation. The point was about if nukes would have prevented that war. They wouldnt.

 

We will never know. I would wager Japan probably wouldn't have attacked an enemy who they knew could flatten entire cities with a single bomb. They were fanatical but not insane.

[Wes Tender]

It's amazing how current much of this is still today:-

 

[OldNick]

The Japanese high command knew they had 6 months to run riot in the Pacific before the US managed to properly gear up its naval capability. Their plan was to pretty much push America out of the Pacific in this period of time, so that they would eventually sue for peace. As a military strategy it was actually quite well thought out and might have succeeded had the battle of Midway panned out differently. The fact that the American aircraft carriers were out on a training operation when the Japanese attacked Pearl was also a major stroke of luck.

 

Nukes absolutely would have made a difference, just look at how the war ended. Japan went from 'no surrender, every last man must fight to the death to defend the homeland' to unconditional surrender in 3 days, between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think you are wrong about the Japanese surrender. They decided to go for peace as they feared Russia were going to get involved.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/ Not conclusive but perhaps puts a different slant on things

Edited 19 July, 2016 by OldNick

[aintforever]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36831308

 

This is why a nuclear deterrent / nuclear capability is still required.

 

Russia, The US, Europe and everyone else with a nuclear capability understands the consequences that would follow just one nuclear missile launch - mutually assured destruction. The crackpot in charge of North Korea probably doesn't give a monkey's what would happen and certainly wouldn't care if his own citizens were wiped out!

 

If the crackpot in charge doesn't give a **** then MAD would not work so we would still be nuked and then just kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in crackpot's country - great plan!

[jawillwill]

but avoided nuclear war. so they say

 

[Weston Super Saint]

If the crackpot in charge doesn't give a **** then MAD would not work so we would still be nuked and then just kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in crackpot's country - great plan!

 

Would a better plan be to give up all of our nuclear weapons and therefore take away our ability to launch a 'preventative' strike?

[derry]

In the say 30 year life of Trident unless the law changes we will flush well over £500 billion into foreign aid. Cheap at the price looking at that. Maybe we should spend that at home and on the military.

[buctootim]

In the say 30 year life of Trident unless the law changes we will flush well over £500 billion into foreign aid. Cheap at the price looking at that. Maybe we should spend that at home and on the military.

 

Yeah burn the ****ers instead of feeding them.

[Mr Biscuits]

I love debates on nuclear weapons. They always end up so well argued and reasonable from both sides.......

[buctootim]

I love debates on nuclear weapons. They always end up so well argued and reasonable from both sides.......

 

Im ambivalent about them. The vacuous arguments do trigger a reaction though.

[SO16_Saint]

Am I right in thinking that the new Subs will be built in Scotland?

 

Scotland don't want Trident to be renewed, so I'm sure they won't mind if they're built in Portsmouth then?

[Mr Biscuits]

Im ambivalent about them. The vacuous arguments do trigger a reaction though.

 

The epic levels of ignorance are quite astounding