Trident

[lucky]

As our devolved Parliament votes on the renewal of trident what's people's views on here on it?

The costs to renew are around £25bn with running costs of £2.5bn per year.

For me it's never been about the cost or the jobs it's always been that it's immoral for us to have WMD.

[RyeSloan]

As our devolved Parliament votes on the renewal of trident what's people's views on here on it? The costs to renew are around £25bn with running costs of £2.5bn per year. For me it's never been about the cost or the jobs it's always been that it's immoral for us to have WMD.

Tricky one as you can't un invent nuclear weapons so the 'immoral' or 'nuclear free world' argument doesn't really float my boat.

It can also be said that having such weapons gives us heft on the global stage that we might not otherwise have (although quantifying what that actually means is another debate all together!)

Still that said I'm not sure the UK needs to maintain its own sea borne deterrent or that I agree with us having nuclear weapons at all and at those prices it's needs serious consideration. Although the costs being bandied about for its full life cycle are a touch misleading in the sense that what else gets quoted in such a way?

So my view is unclear and of no use to anyone! ;-)

[Scouse Hibee]

I back us having Trident and want to see it maintained as a deterrent.

[CropleyWasGod]

As the geopolitical world gets ever more complicated, I struggle to see who the WMDs protect us from. I could see the logic in the 60s and 70s, but now?

The greatest threats to security appear to be from areas that nuclear weapons aren't going to stop. Terrorism, both of the traditional sort and cyber stuff, are where the dangers come from IMO.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Geo_1875]

Are we going to use nukes and walk into mutually assured destruction? If not, why have them? If yes, we shouldn't have them.

[hibsbollah]

It's completely obsolete and strategically useless. As well as being phenomenally expensive. We're supposed to be living in an era where the state apparently has no money for nurses, doctors, policemen or public sector workers. The British armed forces don't even have functioning aircraft carriers anymore, and these are at least relatively useful in the kind of wars that might be fought in the next century. It makes no sense whatsoever.

But the heart of the matter is nuclear weapons are designed to inflict the maximium number of civilian deaths over a wide area, and they take the immorality of total war to a new level. If Iran or North Korea are castigated for wanting a nuclear 'deterrent' (and these countries at least have a recent history of war and nuclear powers right on their doorstep so at least have 'immediate threat' as some sort of justification for wanting it), the UK should be too.

[easty]

Are we going to use nukes and walk into mutually assured destruction? If not, why have them? If yes, we shouldn't have them.

Exactly. :agree:

[ACLeith]

I can't think of any country who thought of attacking us in the last, say 30 years, and who was deterred because we have these weapons.

In that same time there are good examples of unilateral actions being effective in major ways.

[steakbake]

Pointless weapons of mass destruction. They are not independent (the UK cannot launch them alone). Their use would pretty much mean the destruction of civilization as we know it and were we ever at the point of experiencing that, then having them will make absolutely no difference.

We cannot and must not replace them. They were of their time but are now completely useless. Some of the money saved should be ploughed into the areas that rely on them to create new jobs and economic development and the remainder - of which there would be absolutely plenty - should be reinvested into education, health, infrastructure and so on.

[liamh2202]

Pointless weapons of mass destruction. They are not independent (the UK cannot launch them alone). Their use would pretty much mean the destruction of civilization as we know it and were we ever at the point of experiencing that, then having them will make absolutely no difference.

We cannot and must not replace them. They were of their time but are now completely useless. Some of the money saved should be ploughed into the areas that rely on them to create new jobs and economic development and the remainder - of which there would be absolutely plenty - should be reinvested into education, health, infrastructure and so on.

Your post is incorrect. We have total control over our system.

[Moulin Yarns]

Canada unilaterally got rid of them and nobody has invaded it.

[RyeSloan]

I alluded to this earlier and I'm interested in people's thoughts but when people say they are pointless as they will never be used does that not ignore their very purpose? It's having them not using them that counts.

If every nation rid itself of nuclear weapons the capability and knowledge would still exist to make them so anyone that had the capability to do so very quickly (or just ignored protocol and built one) would be a huge threat that could kick off a very quick renuclearisaton of the world.

The constant and every lasting threat of such action (real or perceived) would surely mean nations like the U.S. would need to keep the capability and infrastructure to respond at constant readiness. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that perennial situation might lead to a rather unstable world which although Nuke free in name was not by nature. In some ways the world might actually be under a bigger nuclear threat than it is now with the imperfect but relatively stable stalemate of their physical presence.

Is it not then an inconvenient truth that nuclear weapons must always exist because of the simple fact that they already exist?

P.s that doesn't mean the UK needs to have them of course but it would certainly be an argument for considering why we might want to keep ours.

[liamh2202]

I alluded to this earlier and I'm interested in people's thoughts but when people say they are pointless as they will never be used does that not ignore their very purpose? It's having them not using them that counts.

If every nation rid itself of nuclear weapons the capability and knowledge would still exist to make them so anyone that had the capability to do so very quickly (or just ignored protocol and built one) would be a huge threat that could kick off a very quick renuclearisaton of the world.

The constant and every lasting threat of such action (real or perceived) would surely mean nations like the U.S. would need to keep the capability and infrastructure to respond at constant readiness. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that perennial situation might lead to a rather unstable world which although Nuke free in name was not by nature. In some ways the world might actually be under a bigger nuclear threat than it is now with the imperfect but relatively stable stalemate of their physical presence.

Is it not then an inconvenient truth that nuclear weapons must always exist because of the simple fact that they already exist?

P.s that doesn't mean the UK needs to have them of course but it would certainly be an argument for considering why we might want to keep ours.

I try to stay away from these debates because my personal view is distorted because i work on a daily basis with these things. But i thought id say this is one of the best posts ive read on this matter.

What i would say is maybe we need to look at maintaining casd between allies which would save a lot of money.

[hibsbollah]

I try to stay away from these debates because my personal view is distorted because i work on a daily basis with these things.

I don't see why. Assuming you work at Faslane or whatever, that shouldn't stop you from having a broad spectrum of possible views on whether we should develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?

[liamh2202]

I don't see why. Assuming you work at Faslane or whatever, that shouldn't stop you from having a broad spectrum of possible views on whether we should develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?

I serve on submarines,and all i meant was my views on renewal are really based on issues that face me and affect my family rather than the broader issues that are being discussed. I accept that's quite a narrow minded view of things but all i meant was its hard to have a constructive perspective when the issue has such large consequences personally

[hibsbollah]

I serve on submarines,and all i meant was my views on renewal are really based on issues that face me and affect my family rather than the broader issues that are being discussed. I accept that's quite a narrow minded view of things but all i meant was its hard to have a constructive perspective when the issue has such large consequences personally

That's very understandable. Do you have any faith in the argument that the renewable sector could take up some of the skilled workforce?

[liamh2202]

That's very understandable. Do you have any faith in the argument that the renewable sector could take up some of the skilled workforce?

I am lucky because i am an engineer so renewables and indeed the nuclear industrr/ rolls royce etc take on military personell. But we are a very small percentage when you take it in proportion to other branches in the navy. As for civilians employed at the base as a whole the renewables sector would be no help imo. The point i have raised in the past, that im unsure of is . are the snp against nuclear weapons on the clyde or nuclear submarines.? If we got rid of the weapons but kept submarines which actually fight wars then the jobs would still be there for the base. I have some hope there is a happy medium to be found here. Altbougb this is a slightly different Topic to the one put forward by the origional poster.

[steakbake]

Your post is incorrect. We have total control over our system.

Then I stand corrected, in that case. Perhaps I'm being too absolute. They are however, central to the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement, they are at the very least pooled with the US capability, operated on an 'enhanced collaboration' basis and reliant, to a greater or lesser extent, on US technology for the delivery system.

Imagine, for example, Iran having that kind of tie-up with another country: we'd have tales of armageddon and threats to world peace being pictured for us.

They do not keep the UK any safer for their existence.

As I say, if they are scrapped, the government and the MOD must take care of the people who worked on and for them. As you say, if the decision was to retain submarines but dispense with the warheads, I'd be happy enough with that. However, I would not for one minute feel sorry to see the nukes go.

[liamh2202]

As I say, if they are scrapped, the government and the MOD must take care of the people who worked on and for them. As you say, if the decision was to retain submarines but dispense with the warheads, I'd be happy enough with that. However, I would not for one minute feel sorry to see the nukes go.[/QUOTE]

Imo the way faslane has been made the uk's only submarine base is excellent for the local area. All our attack submarines are now being relocated there and it will be the only base in the uk for submarines. As i said above i believe this would still work without ssbns , unfortunately we would have to rely on the uk govt to make that decision as a vote in scotland only would result in an all or nothing situation ( which is wrong)

[heretoday]

I used to be for Trident. Now I am against it.

[ronaldo7]

I don't see the need for them anymore. We only have 19 major surface combatants which include 6 Destroyers and 13 frigates. We then have 10 subs which splits down to 4 SSBN's, and 6 Attack subs. Not enough for a supposed Great maritime nation.

Imo we have stretched our forces including the Army too thinly, and we should go back to re-enforcing our conventional forces.

The new SSBN's will take up too much of our defence budget, and we could spend some on more conventional stuff, and the rest could be used to support other people who really need it.

HMNB Clyde was to be used as a conventional base had Scotland voted for Independence. The workers at the base would still be required to do work on the other Submarines, even without the SSBN's

With 57 out of 59 MP's and 96MSP's against 17 in our own Parliament against the renewal of Trident, the Uk Gov will have to sit up and listen, or will they?

[Bristolhibby]

I don't see the need for them anymore. We only have 19 major surface combatants which include 6 Destroyers and 13 frigates. We then have 10 subs which splits down to 4 SSBN's, and 6 Attack subs. Not enough for a supposed Great maritime nation.

Imo we have stretched our forces including the Army too thinly, and we should go back to re-enforcing our conventional forces.

The new SSBN's will take up too much of our defence budget, and we could spend some on more conventional stuff, and the rest could be used to support other people who really need it.

HMNB Clyde was to be used as a conventional base had Scotland voted for Independence. The workers at the base would still be required to do work on the other Submarines, even without the SSBN's

With 57 out of 59 MP's and 96MSP's against 17 in our own Parliament against the renewal of Trident, the Uk Gov will have to sit up and listen, or will they?

Re your last point. Why should they listen?

The Consevertives have an absolute majority in the UK Parliament. They just have to vote it through.

Defence isn't devolved so the Scottish Parlinent vote was just making a point. Nothing more.

However the Tories are desperately trying to "Balance the books" (or at least that's what they call it, an ideological attack on the Public Sector is more accurate). Would be hard to sell massive cuts to one budget, while at the same time committing to billions of pounds in another budget.

IMHO the way they will square it off is the fact that many of ther real lords and masters (not us the electorate) are big Transnational Industrial players like BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Lockheed Martin and Babcock Marine.and they and their shareholders will benefit greatly from renewing Trident.

[liamh2202]

I don't see the need for them anymore. We only have 19 major surface combatants which include 6 Destroyers and 13 frigates. We then have 10 subs which splits down to 4 SSBN's, and 6 Attack subs. Not enough for a supposed Great maritime nation.

Imo we have stretched our forces including the Army too thinly, and we should go back to re-enforcing our conventional forces.

The new SSBN's will take up too much of our defence budget, and we could spend some on more conventional stuff, and the rest could be used to support other people who really need it.

HMNB Clyde was to be used as a conventional base had Scotland voted for Independence. The workers at the base would still be required to do work on the other Submarines, even without the SSBN's

With 57 out of 59 MP's and 96MSP's against 17 in our own Parliament against the renewal of Trident, the Uk Gov will have to sit up and listen, or will they?

Not strictly true. We dont have conventional powered submarines and post independance it would be used for conventional surface fleet., unfortunately rendering all but most of the staff at faslane out of a job

[ronaldo7]

Not strictly true. We dont have conventional powered submarines and post independance it would be used for conventional surface fleet., unfortunately rendering all but most of the staff at faslane out of a job

I wasn't speaking of the Subs being conventional, they went out with the ark.:greengrin

Faslane was going to be the THE base for all of Scotland's surface and submarine fleet (whatever that would look like).

The last FOI done on the Trident issue was that just over 500 people were deemed to be working on or around them. I'm still trying to find out where the 13,000 jobs would be going from. The attack class subs would still be needing work done, and if we had more surface fleet based at Faslane, that would more than make up for the original 500 imo.

Alternatively we could give each employee attending to Trident £1million and still save money.:wink:

[ronaldo7]

Re your last point. Why should they listen?

The Consevertives have an absolute majority in the UK Parliament. They just have to vote it through.

Defence isn't devolved so the Scottish Parlinent vote was just making a point. Nothing more.

However the Tories are desperately trying to "Balance the books" (or at least that's what they call it, an ideological attack on the Public Sector is more accurate). Would be hard to sell massive cuts to one budget, while at the same time committing to billions of pounds in another budget.

IMHO the way they will square it off is the fact that many of ther real lords and masters (not us the electorate) are big Transnational Industrial players like BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Lockheed Martin and Babcock Marine.and they and their shareholders will benefit greatly from renewing Trident.

Re your first point. They told us to stay and lead the Uk and not to Leave the Uk. Now that the people of Scotland have spoken in both parliament's, I'd like to think they'd listen. :greengrin

[liamh2202]

I wasn't speaking of the Subs being conventional, they went out with the ark.:greengrin

Faslane was going to be the THE base for all of Scotland's surface and submarine fleet (whatever that would look like).

The last FOI done on the Trident issue was that just over 500 people were deemed to be working on or around them. I'm still trying to find out where the 13,000 jobs would be going from. The attack class subs would still be needing work done, and if we had more surface fleet based at Faslane, that would more than make up for the original 500 imo.

Alternatively we could give each employee attending to Trident £1million and still save money.:wink:

I kond of get where you are coming from but just two points... There are many more people than the 500 quoted work solely on trident. And the other is the point i made earlier of having an all or nothing option.. If we get our way and get rid of trident i dont think the a class and t class would remain at faslane . i dont disagree with your point of view at all by the way.

[HappyAsHellas]

Why do we need a new version of trident? I must confess this is an area in which I have little, or no knowledge whatsoever. Has the old trident stopped working? Do nuclear warheads have a best before date? Can I pick one up on the cheap if it runs out tomorrow but is still "fresh"?
In my own simplistic little world I see something we built in a different era that has little or no bearing on the world we live in today. Having said this, do I believe that some reincarnation of Ayotollah Khomenai would push the button and wipe out Israel - yes, in a heartbeat. But then again, if someone in the Middle East or some Asian country committed the heinous act, would we all simultaneously launch our missiles just for the hell of it? It seems to me that we go round and round in circles with erroneous debate, as we have for decades whilst some very influential companies and their shareholders make ever increasing amounts of money. Ditch the bloody things, what's the worst that could happen?

[Pete]

I think that we have to have some sort of nuclear capability. The argument stating that we can't unlearn the technology is the trump card.

Do we really need to spend all that money on this though? Surely a Tesco value trident would be enough to ensure we are still taken seriously should push come to shove?

Threats to our national security and way of life have moved on and resources should be redirected accordingly.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think that we have to have some sort of nuclear capability. The argument stating that we can't unlearn the technology is the trump card.

Do we really need to spend all that money on this though? Surely a Tesco value trident would be enough to ensure we are still taken seriously should push come to shove?

Threats to our national security and way of life have moved on and resources should be redirected accordingly.

It seems to me that, if we need a nuclear capability, then the Canadian approach in the 1970's is a reasonable compromise.

Canada withdrew three of the four nuclear-capable weapons systems by 1972. The single system retained, the AIR-2 Genie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie) delivered 1.5 kiloton of force, and was designed to strike enemy aircraft as opposed to ground targets, and may not qualify as a weapon of mass destruction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) given its limited yield.

[liamh2202]

Why do we need a new version of trident? I must confess this is an area in which I have little, or no knowledge whatsoever. Has the old trident stopped working? Do nuclear warheads have a best before date? Can I pick one up on the cheap if it runs out tomorrow but is still "fresh"?
In my own simplistic little world I see something we built in a different era that has little or no bearing on the world we live in today. Having said this, do I believe that some reincarnation of Ayotollah Khomenai would push the button and wipe out Israel - yes, in a heartbeat. But then again, if someone in the Middle East or some Asian country committed the heinous act, would we all simultaneously launch our missiles just for the hell of it? It seems to me that we go round and round in circles with erroneous debate, as we have for decades whilst some very influential companies and their shareholders make ever increasing amounts of money. Ditch the bloody things, what's the worst that could happen?

Its the boats that require replacing rather than the system .
Mate

[liamh2202]

It seems to me that, if we need a nuclear capability, then the Canadian approach in the 1970's is a reasonable compromise.

Canada withdrew three of the four nuclear-capable weapons systems by 1972. The single system retained, the AIR-2 Genie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie) delivered 1.5 kiloton of force, and was designed to strike enemy aircraft as opposed to ground targets, and may not qualify as a weapon of mass destruction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) given its limited yield.

It then becomes not a detterent. We have a detterent just now because no one knows where our patrol submarine is , therefore cant be taken out.

[ronaldo7]

It then becomes not a detterent. We have a detterent just now because no one knows where our patrol submarine is , therefore cant be taken out.

:faf: The silent service became a little startled when it bumped into a French nuke in the Atlantic. You just can't get the staff these days.:wink:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/16/nuclear-submarines-collide

[liamh2202]

:faf: The silent service became a little startled when it bumped into a French nuke in the Atlantic. You just can't get the staff these days.:wink:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/16/nuclear-submarines-collide

After hitting an underwater container , she never even surfaced! The same cant be said for the underwater container ;) shows how silent we really are in our tin cans :)

[Geo_1875]

It then becomes not a detterent. We have a detterent just now because no one knows where our patrol submarine is , therefore cant be taken out.

Why do we need to replace it if nobody knows where it is? We could just announce that the subs have been replaced and deployed. It wouldn't be the first time the government have lied.

And to answer my own question, big business do not want to miss out on the profit from our £167,000,000,000 "investment" and their stooges in government won't want to disappoint them.

[liamh2202]

Why do we need to replace it if nobody knows where it is? We could just announce that the subs have been replaced and deployed. It wouldn't be the first time the government have lied.

And to answer my own question, big business do not want to miss out on the profit from our £167,000,000,000 "investment" and their stooges in government won't want to disappoint them.

No reason why you couldnt,, i wasnt arguing the point. I find the figure funny though because its the only one that is calculated over the lifetime of Nything

[Geo_1875]

No reason why you couldnt,, i wasnt arguing the point. I find the figure funny though because its the only one that is calculated over the lifetime of Nything

The last deterrent lasted 40 years. Can we assume that the new one will last that long? Maybe not but it's fair to say we'll be committing £4 billion per year to keep it going.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Good points on both sides.

Personally, being an ex CND member I am against it. Cost is one thing. I feel the money should be used much more wisely in helping the needy in this country. it really is an absolutely obscene amount to be spent on weapons that if we are to believe most people, will never be used. Obviously it is worrying that other countries would still have them, however if we don't have them are we still a target? still feel we over play Britain's role in world affairs. What use is our wee cluster of 800 odd islands to anyone, especially if it has just been nuked? Another way look at it is if we did use them and our enemies used them then we are virtually ensuring that most of earth would be wiped out. Big price to pay. Also bear in mind that most of us live in the Central belt between Faslane and Rosyth. Guess where the first bomb would fall. :greengrin Not that this would necessarily be a bad thing. kills us all quickly.

[Moulin Yarns]

Good points on both sides.

Personally, being an ex CND member I am against it. Cost is one thing. I feel the money should be used much more wisely in helping the needy in this country. it really is an absolutely obscene amount to be spent on weapons that if we are to believe most people, will never be used. Obviously it is worrying that other countries would still have them, however if we don't have them are we still a target? still feel we over play Britain's role in world affairs. What use is our wee cluster of 800 odd islands to anyone, especially if it has just been nuked? Another way look at it is if we did use them and our enemies used them then we are virtually ensuring that most of earth would be wiped out. Big price to pay. Also bear in mind that most of us live in the Central belt between Faslane and Rosyth. Guess where the first bomb would fall. :greengrin Not that this would necessarily be a bad thing. kills us all quickly.

IMHO the reason we still have them is so the USofA have an advanced strike on any hostile nation on this side of the pond, not to protect the British Isles. As I've said previously, Canada got rid of nuclear weapons unilaterally on the basis that if anything was fired at the USofA there would be no point. Maybe we should do the same and hide behind France, after all we have 150 active warheads compared to their 290 which are deployed on sea and air, much more mobile than a submarine :wink:

[liamh2202]

IMHO the reason we still have them is so the USofA have an advanced strike on any hostile nation on this side of the pond, not to protect the British Isles. As I've said previously, Canada got rid of nuclear weapons unilaterally on the basis that if anything was fired at the USofA there would be no point. Maybe we should do the same and hide behind France, after all we have 150 active warheads compared to their 290 which are deployed on sea and air, much more mobile than a submarine :wink:

If you think the u.s need us your severely mistaken . our capability to theirs isnt comparable they have more ssbns on patrol than we have total submarines in our fleet. Also france more mobile than us? We have had an uniterupted continuous detterant.the same cant be said for france, mobility also isnt an issue when you have the capability to hit a target anyehere.

[lord bunberry]

Nuclear weapons if used would mean the end of civilisation as we know it, if we don't have them then it's more likely that countries with them wouldn't aim there's at us. IMO in this country they're a throwback to a time when Britain was a superpower, we're an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things and instead of trying to be something we're not we should spend the money on things that will help the people in this country that need help.

[ronaldo7]

I kond of get where you are coming from but just two points... There are many more people than the 500 quoted work solely on trident. And the other is the point i made earlier of having an all or nothing option.. If we get our way and get rid of trident i dont think the a class and t class would remain at faslane . i dont disagree with your point of view at all by the way.

The number of people the MOD said worked directly for Trident at Faslane in 2012. Maybe it's risen since then though. :greengrin

http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/uk-trident-operational-berths/ministry-defence-reveals-just-520-faslane-jobs-depend-trident

[Lucius Apuleius]

I don't remember the unions being for nuclear weapons during the CND heydays. I do recall the vast majority of union leaders being members though. Maybe warped. 😁 if we save 100 billion plus on not having Trident , I am pretty sure jobs could be created.

[JeMeSouviens]

Britain having nuclear weapons is like posh urban drivers in their gleaming 4x4s: completely unsuited for purpose and wholly dedicated to the status of the owner. :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

Britain having nuclear weapons is like posh urban drivers in their gleaming 4x4s: completely unsuited for purpose and wholly dedicated to the status of the owner. :rolleyes:

:top marks
I'll be plagiarising that.

[Moulin Yarns]

Did the nuclear deterrent prevent the attacks in Paris?

[RyeSloan]

Did the nuclear deterrent prevent the attacks in Paris?

Was it meant to?

[Scouse Hibee]

Did the nuclear deterrent prevent the attacks in Paris?

Oh dear.

[liamh2202]

Did the nuclear deterrent prevent the attacks in Paris?

Wow

[Bristolhibby]

Did the nuclear deterrent prevent the attacks in Paris?

Would ****ing about in the Middle East for decades have prevented the attacks in Paris/Madrid/New York/London?

J

[lord bunberry]

Did the nuclear deterrent prevent the attacks in Paris?
No they didn't. It's a bit too soon to be talking about this tbh, but if we're talking about a deterrent to keep us safe then trident isn't what we need IMO.

[SkintHibby]

Germany, Italy and Spain don't have a nuclear deterrent. I don't see anyone about to attack them because they don't have nukes.

I used to be in favour of Trident. SNP helped me see the light. Get rid.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Terrorism for the most part isn't prevented/curtailed if a country has a nuclear deterrent.
Maybe we could kid-on that we have upgraded trident? I know for a fact that the UN WMD inspectors would pass it.Sorted.

[lord bunberry]

The threat has changed and modern forward thinking countries move with the times, harking back to a time when Britannia ruled the waves leaves the country weaker when it comes to the real threat.
I know it's an unpopular view on these boards, but I would give the security services full access to internet traffic. I've got nothing to hide, but plenty to love and lose.

[RyeSloan]

The threat has changed and modern forward thinking countries move with the times, harking back to a time when Britannia ruled the waves leaves the country weaker when it comes to the real threat. I know it's an unpopular view on these boards, but I would give the security services full access to internet traffic. I've got nothing to hide, but plenty to love and lose.

I would suggest that the threat hasn't changed..there is still dangerous regimes that have or want nuclear weapons. Ridding ourself of our deterrent doesn't remove that threat not has it gone away. If we are happy to rely on our allies (mainly the U.S.) to balance that threat then maybe we shouldn't complain about being the U.S. poodle so often?

Agreed there are other threats that have evolved that Trident does nothing to deter although constant state surveillance of its populace seems a rather draconian response. So you are saying that you don't trust the state to gauge if a nuclear deterrent is required to keep us 'safe' but do trust it to intrusively monitor all electronic communications to achieve the same goal? I find this flip flopping on what we trust the state to do slightly odd.

[Aldo]

The threat has changed and modern forward thinking countries move with the times, harking back to a time when Britannia ruled the waves leaves the country weaker when it comes to the real threat. I know it's an unpopular view on these boards, but I would give the security services full access to internet traffic. I've got nothing to hide, but plenty to love and lose.


Unpopular or not if it means a safer world for my children to grow up in then so be it! I am sure the 'this is a breach of my human rights brigade' will jump on this bandwagon but it it protects our country then yip I'm all for it.

Do the terrorist/radicals/fundamentalists care about our human rights.... Nope!

By whatever means possible IMHO!

Back on subject.... Having served in the Submarine Service I am all for keeping Trident and any subsequent upgraded version.

[lord bunberry]

I would suggest that the threat hasn't changed..there is still dangerous regimes that have or want nuclear weapons. Ridding ourself of our deterrent doesn't remove that threat not has it gone away. If we are happy to rely on our allies (mainly the U.S.) to balance that threat then maybe we shouldn't complain about being the U.S. poodle so often?

Agreed there are other threats that have evolved that Trident does nothing to deter although constant state surveillance of its populace seems a rather draconian response. So you are saying that you don't trust the state to gauge if a nuclear deterrent is required to keep us 'safe' but do trust it to intrusively monitor all electronic communications to achieve the same goal? I find this flip flopping on what we trust the state to do slightly odd.
Governments will do what's popular to get themselves re elected. I dont trust them to do anything, I agree with somethings they do and disagree with others, I don't see that as flip flopping or odd.
The threat of a nuclear attack on this country is tiny and would almost certainly be less if we got rid of our nuclear weapons and adopted a less aggressive foreign policy, removing the need to be anyone's poodle.

[lord bunberry]

Unpopular or not if it means a safer world for my children to grow up in then so be it! I am sure the 'this is a breach of my human rights brigade' will jump on this bandwagon but it it protects our country then yip I'm all for it.

Do the terrorist/radicals/fundamentalists care about our human rights.... Nope!

By whatever means possible IMHO!

Back on subject.... Having served in the Submarine Service I am all for keeping Trident and any subsequent upgraded version.
I agree with your first point Aldo, if the security forces started monitoring everyone's internet activity we'd all be safer and we'd all continue with our lives oblivious to what was going on. No one is interested in what I'm doing or what 99.9% of the population is doing online.

[Aldo]

I agree with your first point Aldo, if the security forces started monitoring everyone's internet activity we'd all be safer and we'd all continue with our lives oblivious to what was going on. No one is interested in what I'm doing or what 99.9% of the population is doing online.

Exactly. It's about what's best to keep everyone safe IMHO. Friday nights atrocities have proved (to me anyway) that we must do and use every means possible to try in assist us in combatting this on every front!

[lord bunberry]

Exactly. It's about what's best to keep everyone safe IMHO. Friday nights atrocities have proved (to me anyway) that we must do and use every means possible to try in assist us in combatting this on every front!
:top marks

[Pretty Boy]

I'm curious when people say they would be happy to give security forces unlimited access to their internet usage.

How far would you be willing to allow things to go? Is it easy to say because it's, for lack of a better word, remote and you'd be unlikely to know it was happening? Would you be happy for say your mail to be opened before delivery to you? Subjected to random stop and search on the street? Have your home phone bugged? Have your bank transactions accesible to the state? Allow the Police to search your home without a warrant just in case?

A fair bit of what iffery there from myself but I'm genuinely intrigued if people would happily see their private communications etc be accessed on other platforms as happily as they would their internet usage and communications?

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I'm curious when people say they would be happy to give security forces unlimited access to their internet usage.

How far would you be willing to allow things to go? Is it easy to say because it's, for lack of a better word, remote and you'd be unlikely to know it was happening? Would you be happy for say your mail to be opened before delivery to you? Subjected to random stop and search on the street? Have your home phone bugged? Have your bank transactions accesible to the state? Allow the Police to search your home without a warrant just in case?

A fair bit of what iffery there from myself but I'm genuinely intrigued if people would happily see their private communications etc be accessed on other platforms as happily as they would their internet usage and communications?

I'm personally ok with all the above on the grounds that I think it's necessary. I do find it a bit weird but if it helps prevent incidents like Friday then we need to get over it and give the police the powers they need in this day and age.

I don't see it as that different to the info Google have been storing for some time, bank employees having access to our personal finance, NHS employees having health records etc. Anyone found abusing their position would be prosecuted in the same way.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Britain having nuclear weapons is like posh urban drivers in their gleaming 4x4s: completely unsuited for purpose and wholly dedicated to the status of the owner. :rolleyes:

It's a good line, and I really can't stand 4x4s. Not only are they bad for the environment and take up too much space on the road, they're also very ugly and do nothing for the drivers image.

But to continue the analogy, the owners of 4x4s are less likely to get injured in a crash because of their cars are bigger and stronger.

I'd personally keep trident for the time being but we should start decommissioning any 'excess' weapons that we don't need.

[lord bunberry]

I'm curious when people say they would be happy to give security forces unlimited access to their internet usage.

How far would you be willing to allow things to go? Is it easy to say because it's, for lack of a better word, remote and you'd be unlikely to know it was happening? Would you be happy for say your mail to be opened before delivery to you? Subjected to random stop and search on the street? Have your home phone bugged? Have your bank transactions accesible to the state? Allow the Police to search your home without a warrant just in case?

A fair bit of what iffery there from myself but I'm genuinely intrigued if people would happily see their private communications etc be accessed on other platforms as happily as they would their internet usage and communications?
The reality is that if you're not suspected of committing a crime then they won't have the slightest interest in your online activity, your mail or any of the other things you mentioned.

[SkintHibby]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD.

Telling indeed.

[marinello59]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD.

Telling indeed.

Maybe they think you are simply ignoring the restrictions that were put on the German military after the war so haven't bothered replying.

[RyeSloan]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD. Telling indeed.

It's not telling at all...Germany relies on NATO for that purpose. France, U.S. and the UK provide the nuclear deterrent with specifically the U.S. providing Germany with formal nuclear sharing.

So maybe it is telling actually. Germany feels it needs to be within a military alliance that shares nuclear weapons.

[RyeSloan]

The reality is that if you're not suspected of committing a crime then they won't have the slightest interest in your online activity, your mail or any of the other things you mentioned.

Do you not think that is rather naive?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As our devolved Parliament votes on the renewal of trident what's people's views on here on it?

The costs to renew are around £25bn with running costs of £2.5bn per year.

For me it's never been about the cost or the jobs it's always been that it's immoral for us to have WMD.

To paraphrase Sean in the untouchables, you don't go to a gunfight, then decide that guns are immoral, get rid of yours and go back to using your knife.

We have them, we won't be giving them up, and frankly would be mad to consider it.

[RyeSloan]

Governments will do what's popular to get themselves re elected. I dont trust them to do anything, I agree with somethings they do and disagree with others, I don't see that as flip flopping or odd. The threat of a nuclear attack on this country is tiny and would almost certainly be less if we got rid of our nuclear weapons and adopted a less aggressive foreign policy, removing the need to be anyone's poodle.

How can you not trust them to do anything but believe that the state constantly monitoring all of its citizens communications will mean we are all much safer? Or that they wouldn't use the information gather for anything more than prevention of terrorism or crime (which of course they will be at liberty to define as they see fit)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I try to stay away from these debates because my personal view is distorted because i work on a daily basis with these things. But i thought id say this is one of the best posts ive read on this matter.

What i would say is maybe we need to look at maintaining casd between allies which would save a lot of money.

Agree, and IMO, we will eventually moved to EU/European defence, and the nuclear deterrent would exist at that level.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD.

Telling indeed.

Because they weren't allowed them, and us, the USA and France all guaranteed their safety with our nuclear weapons.

We also stationed tens of thousands of our troops on their soil.

[lord bunberry]

How can you not trust them to do anything but believe that the state constantly monitoring all of its citizens communications will mean we are all much safer? Or that they wouldn't use the information gather for anything more than prevention of terrorism or crime (which of course they will be at liberty to define as they see fit)
I don't particularly trust them to do that either, I just think it's the best way forward in tackling the threat of terrorism. There's no ideal solution to this imo, but to stop terrorists we need to know what they're planning to do and the best way to do this is to be monitoring there communications.
The best way to stop someone attacking us with nuclear weapons isn't to have nuclear weapons ourselves.

[Aldo]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD. Telling indeed.

Their choice however do we really know if they do or don't possess these weapons??

[Aldo]

Their choice however do we really know if they do or don't possess these weapons??

Edit:

Found this. Would appear not to but produce components for them

Germany is among the powers which possess the ability to create nuclear weapons but has agreed not to do so (under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as reaffirmed by the Two Plus Four Treaty). Along with most other industrial nations, Germany produces components that can be used for creating deadly agents, chemical weapons, and other WMD. A

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD.

Telling indeed.

To turn this on its head mate,c why do you think all of these aspirant nations are trying so hard to obtain nuclear weapons?

And why do you think there isn't a long line of countries trying to give them up?

[RyeSloan]

I don't particularly trust them to do that either, I just think it's the best way forward in tackling the threat of terrorism. There's no ideal solution to this imo, but to stop terrorists we need to know what they're planning to do and the best way to do this is to be monitoring there communications. The best way to stop someone attacking us with nuclear weapons isn't to have nuclear weapons ourselves.

Fair enough...I'm not sure I'm going to agree with you on the communications thing, maybe I trust the state even less than you! :-)

But I'm curious about your last sentence...do you actually believe that considering the history of nuclear weapons? What evidence can you point to that not having nuclear weapons makes you less likely to be attacked by them?

[lord bunberry]

Fair enough...I'm not sure I'm going to agree with you on the communications thing, maybe I trust the state even less than you! :-)

But I'm curious about your last sentence...do you actually believe that considering the history of nuclear weapons? What evidence can you point to that not having nuclear weapons makes you less likely to be attacked by them?
I can't point to any evidence, it's just an opinion. My thinking is that our only threat at this time from a nuclear attack would come from Russia and the reason they would launch an attack at us would be to stop us doing likewise. Without nuclear weapons we're no threat whatsoever to Russia.

[Moulin Yarns]

To turn this on its head mate,c why do you think all of these aspirant nations are trying so hard to obtain nuclear weapons?

And why do you think there isn't a long line of countries trying to give them up?


Fair enough...I'm not sure I'm going to agree with you on the communications thing, maybe I trust the state even less than you! :-)

But I'm curious about your last sentence...do you actually believe that considering the history of nuclear weapons? What evidence can you point to that not having nuclear weapons makes you less likely to be attacked by them?


I don't see many countries threatening to Nuke Canada.


"We are thus not only the first country in the world with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons."
Pierre Trudeau United Nations, 26 May 1978


Anybody notice the similarity between UK defence spending and this sentence?



From 1963 to 1984, US nuclear warheads armed Canadian weapons systems in both Canada and West Germany. During the early part of this period, the Canadian military was putting more effort, money, and manpower into the nuclear commitment than any other single activity.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't see many countries threatening to Nuke Canada.




Anybody notice the similarity between UK defence spending and this sentence?


Do you think they would have done this had they not been covered by the US nuclear umbrella, and members of NATO?

As to your second point, i think this thread would benefit from clarification. Are people arguing that we shouldnt renew trident because we cant afford it (the practical argument) or because nuclear weapons are immoral (moral argument)?

From my perspective, the practical argument is a lot more powerful than the moral one. And i would happily pool our nuclear deterrent with France, and get cost contributions from the rest of the EU.

[RyeSloan]

I don't see many countries threatening to Nuke Canada.

Stating that you have not seen an explicit threat from one country to another as justification for not having nuclear weapons is a huge over simplification as in sure you are well aware.

The threat is clearly a constant one, hence why there is currently a system of deterrent where mutually assured destruction has prevented anyone from using a nuclear weapon on another country that possesses the same ability.

[RyeSloan]

I can't point to any evidence, it's just an opinion. My thinking is that our only threat at this time from a nuclear attack would come from Russia and the reason they would launch an attack at us would be to stop us doing likewise. Without nuclear weapons we're no threat whatsoever to Russia.

Thanks for the response. I find it interesting that you only perceive the current threat from Russia. What about the Chinese or maybe a failed (or further failed!) Pakistan? Or indeed any other nation in the future (North Korea, Iran to name but two) that may develop the ability?

I'm not really getting the argument that by ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons we suddenly become a non target...we would still be in NATIO and we would still be faced with nuclear armed countries.

After all that I'm still not convinced we need our own stand alone deterrent but I'm also not convinced that removing our deterrent has anything like the positive benefits you describe above.

[lord bunberry]

Thanks for the response. I find it interesting that you only perceive the current threat from Russia. What about the Chinese or maybe a failed (or further failed!) Pakistan? Or indeed any other nation in the future (North Korea, Iran to name but two) that may develop the ability?

I'm not really getting the argument that by ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons we suddenly become a non target...we would still be in NATIO and we would still be faced with nuclear armed countries.

After all that I'm still not convinced we need our own stand alone deterrent but I'm also not convinced that removing our deterrent has anything like the positive benefits you describe above.
I might be wrong, but I don't think that the other nations you mention have the long range capability to be able to attack us at the moment.
I don't think that getting rid of trident would immediately make us a non target, it would need to be coupled with a change in foreign policy. I firmly believe that our desire to have nuclear weapons comes from a feeling that we want our country to be a major player in world politics. I'm not really seeing the benefits to the majority of the people in this country of that approach. I used to be a strong supporter of having a nuclear deterrent, but as I've got older my views have changed and I'm maybe guilty of over simplifying things, but I can't get it through my head that whilst people struggle to live a decent quality of life we are spending billions on something that will probably never be used and if they were we would probably all be dead as a result.

[RyeSloan]

I might be wrong, but I don't think that the other nations you mention have the long range capability to be able to attack us at the moment. I don't think that getting rid of trident would immediately make us a non target, it would need to be coupled with a change in foreign policy. I firmly believe that our desire to have nuclear weapons comes from a feeling that we want our country to be a major player in world politics. I'm not really seeing the benefits to the majority of the people in this country of that approach. I used to be a strong supporter of having a nuclear deterrent, but as I've got older my views have changed and I'm maybe guilty of over simplifying things, but I can't get it through my head that whilst people struggle to live a decent quality of life we are spending billions on something that will probably never be used and if they were we would probably all be dead as a result.

I get you on that...and as I said I'm pretty much on the fence although I think I've travelled the opposite way. Used to be CND like in my thoughts but as time goes by I think I understand the rationale for the deterrent slightly more. If it was down to me I would probably look to share some of the costs with other NATO members that 'benefit' from its existence.

[Bristolhibby]

Its quite telling on this thread that the pro-trident folk cant or wont give a reply to my comment that a big rich country like Germany in a strategic part of Europe does not feel the need to possess WMD.

Telling indeed.

Because it's in their constitution that they won't have them, ever.

They did have them on their soil (albeit American missiles) during the Cold War. Not sure if they are there still.

J

[Bristolhibby]

Thing is everything is looking to the past (USSR) and the present, as to who will nuke us.

With thes systems and strategic thinking we need to be thinking who will be the threat in 60 years time. Something that we have no way of knowing. Therefore they (the playforms) will be built.

It's not an issue at the moment. There's a Tory majority, who want a Tridient like for like replacement.

J

[stoneyburn hibs]

What's the point in having nukes? As a deterrent ? As soon as someone else pushes their "button", then we will push ours .
We'd all be dead whether we have them or not. I'd much rather that my money was spent on something more useful than an expensive car, stuck in a garage that won't ever be used.

Could we not just lie to the world and say that we have upgraded them ? The weapons inspectors would back us up.

[Bristolhibby]

What's the point in having nukes? As a deterrent ? As soon as someone else pushes their "button", then we will push ours .
We'd all be dead whether we have them or not. I'd much rather that my money was spent on something more useful than an expensive car, stuck in a garage that won't ever be used.

Could we not just lie to the world and say that we have upgraded them ? The weapons inspectors would back us up.

From a pure theory, that is the deterrent. Mutually assured destruction (MAD). The very fact that you will be destroyed if you use them on an enemy, prevents them from even being used.

Interestingly the only time they have ever been used in anger is when there was no counter balance to the country using them (USA against the Japanese in 1945). As soon as the Soviets got the bomb they effectively became unusable, but ironically unable to be given up either.

They cannot ever be uninvented.

J

[hibs0666]

That's very understandable. Do you have any faith in the argument that the renewable sector could take up some of the skilled workforce?

Barrrow in Furness sits adjacent to Europe's biggest offshore windfarm, but offers a tiny employment opportunity compared to the boat yard (never call a submarine a ship, unless you're on the wind-up, as it gives everyone involved the hump).

[Moulin Yarns]

Barrrow in Furness sits adjacent to Europe's biggest offshore windfarm, but offers a tiny employment opportunity compared to the boat yard (never call a submarine a ship, unless you're on the wind-up, as it gives everyone involved the hump).

You are going to have to update your data, not even largest offshore wind farm in England.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Just back from Belfast where Harland and Wolff shipyard has diversified into offshore Oil and Gas platforms and Offshore turbine construction. Where there's a will there's a way.

[hibs0666]

You are going to have to update your data, not even largest offshore wind farm in England.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Just back from Belfast where Harland and Wolff shipyard has diversified into offshore Oil and Gas platforms and Offshore turbine construction. Where there's a will there's a way.

Take your point, but 500MW is still a whopper of an offshore wind farm so the point remains. :wink:

The boat yard employs something in the region of 7000 people whereas H&W only employs around 500. Also the quality of work undertaken in Barrow is off the scale when compared to H&W and these differences make any comparisons difficult/redundant.

[Moulin Yarns]

Take your point, but 500MW is still a whopper of an offshore wind farm so the point remains. :wink:

The boat yard employs something in the region of 7000 people whereas H&W only employs around 500. Also the quality of work undertaken in Barrow is off the scale when compared to H&W and these differences make any comparisons difficult/redundant.

Think we might b a cross purposes. I think you are talking about employment in the different sectors, I'm talking about diversification from boat building to marine energy construction and while it might not be possible for full redeployment it is better than building boats to carry WMD (IMHO).

[hibs0666]

Think we might b a cross purposes. I think you are talking about employment in the different sectors, I'm talking about diversification from boat building to marine energy construction and while it might not be possible for full redeployment it is better than building boats to carry WMD (IMHO).

Barrow is currently building Astute-class conventional submarines not bombers.

[Geo_1875]

Think we might b a cross purposes. I think you are talking about employment in the different sectors, I'm talking about diversification from boat building to marine energy construction and while it might not be possible for full redeployment it is better than building boats to carry WMD (IMHO).

We could also redeploy and fund all the weapons scientists to come up with something more beneficial to mankind.

[Moulin Yarns]

Take your point, but 500MW is still a whopper of an offshore wind farm so the point remains. :wink:

The boat yard employs something in the region of 7000 people whereas H&W only employs around 500. Also the quality of work undertaken in Barrow is off the scale when compared to H&W and these differences make any comparisons difficult/redundant.

You might also want to review your quality control



http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty

[liamh2202]

You might also want to review your quality control



http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty

You might want to change your reading material ;)

[fulshie]

I find this thread pretty interesting particularly after the tragic events in Paris. Here's my opinion about the renewal of Trident for what its worth. I feel that the biggest threat to our, or anyone else's country for that matter is global terrorism, Paris and countless other terrorist events around the world has proven that. Therefore who do you point a nuclear weapon at? It would seem like a lot of money to blast an Osama Bin Laden with a nuclear warhead of the earth. Another point is, If the nuclear weapons are a deterrent then why are we always at war. I can think of a few we've been involved in since the WW2. They may have not been on these shores but, our government always states that we go to war to protect our shores! That shouldn't happen as we have a deterrent "right". The money we could save from renewal of trident "in my opinion" would be better spent on more intelligence to try and suffocate the terror network cells that seem to be continually growing in our, and other countries. I know there is other arguments for and against this issue and there probably isn't any 100% clear cut answer to them as its an issue that most people have an opinion on and there will be lot of differences.

[liamh2202]

I find this thread pretty interesting particularly after the tragic events in Paris. Here's my opinion about the renewal of Trident for what its worth. I feel that the biggest threat to our, or anyone else's country for that matter is global terrorism, Paris and countless other terrorist events around the world has proven that. Therefore who do you point a nuclear weapon at? It would seem like a lot of money to blast an Osama Bin Laden with a nuclear warhead of the earth. Another point is, If the nuclear weapons are a deterrent then why are we always at war. I can think of a few we've been involved in since the WW2. They may have not been on these shores but, our government always states that we go to war to protect our shores! That shouldn't happen as we have a deterrent "right". The money we could save from renewal of trident "in my opinion" would be better spent on more intelligence to try and suffocate the terror network cells that seem to be continually growing in our, and other countries. I know there is other arguments for and against this issue and there probably isn't any 100% clear cut answer to them as its an issue that most people have an opinion on and there will be lot of differences.

Its a detterent in principle against another country threatning us with their nuclear weapons. Good post though and a lot of things i find myself agreeing with

[Moulin Yarns]

Its a detterent in principle against another country threatning us with their nuclear weapons. Good post though and a lot of things i find myself agreeing with

It wasn't much of a deterrent in 1982 when British territory was invaded.

[steakbake]

I find this thread pretty interesting particularly after the tragic events in Paris. Here's my opinion about the renewal of Trident for what its worth. I feel that the biggest threat to our, or anyone else's country for that matter is global terrorism, Paris and countless other terrorist events around the world has proven that. Therefore who do you point a nuclear weapon at? It would seem like a lot of money to blast an Osama Bin Laden with a nuclear warhead of the earth. Another point is, If the nuclear weapons are a deterrent then why are we always at war. I can think of a few we've been involved in since the WW2. They may have not been on these shores but, our government always states that we go to war to protect our shores! That shouldn't happen as we have a deterrent "right". The money we could save from renewal of trident "in my opinion" would be better spent on more intelligence to try and suffocate the terror network cells that seem to be continually growing in our, and other countries. I know there is other arguments for and against this issue and there probably isn't any 100% clear cut answer to them as its an issue that most people have an opinion on and there will be lot of differences.

The UK has been engaged in some form of military action or other every year for the past 214 years.

A substantial part of our economic and foreign policy relies on a perpetual cycle war.

We really ought to reassess the business model.

[liamh2202]

It wasn't much of a deterrent in 1982 when British territory was invaded.

Were we threatened with nuclear weapons? This is what it is a detterant against , countries using nukes as leverage against us.

[Moulin Yarns]

Were we threatened with nuclear weapons? This is what it is a detterant against , countries using nukes as leverage against us.

No, but why didn't we threaten to use it as leverage against the aggressors at the time? Might have saved a lot of time and about 1000 lives.

[marinello59]

No, but why didn't we threaten to use it as leverage against the aggressors at the time? Might have saved a lot of time and about 1000 lives.

That would not have been a proportionate response would it and has already been pointed out, there was no nuclear threat.
Conventional surface ships, troops and aircraft didn't stop the invasion, using your logic here they should be binned as well.

[ronaldo7]

That would not have been a proportionate response would it and has already been pointed out, there was no nuclear threat.
Conventional surface ships, troops and aircraft didn't stop the invasion, using your logic here they should be binned as well.

You must be having a laugh 59. The Falklands had less than 100 marines at the time of the invasion of Argentinian forces, a few coastal boats, and a couple of Cessna's were confiscated by the Argies. Hardly a force to be reckoned with eh:greengrin

The British government had left the islanders to their own devices for years.

The Argies on the other hand brought 600 troops, an amphibious ship, a destroyer, and a sub with special forces.

I do get your point on proportionate response though,:aok:

[marinello59]

You must be having a laugh 59. The Falklands had less than 100 marines at the time of the invasion of Argentinian forces, a few coastal boats, and a couple of Cessna's were confiscated by the Argies. Hardly a force to be reckoned with eh:greengrin

The British government had left the islanders to their own devices for years.

The Argies on the other hand brought 600 troops, an amphibious ship, a destroyer, and a sub with special forces.

I do get your point on proportionate response though,:aok:

That was not the point I was making. Argentina knew they could walk in there, they weren't put off by the fact our conventional forces could kick them straight back out again.
I know exactly what the situation was down there. Thatcher's Government cocked it up big style.

[ronaldo7]

That was not the point I was making. Argentina knew they could walk in there, they weren't put off by the fact our conventional forces could kick them straight back out again.
I know exactly what the situation was down there. Thatcher's Government cocked it up big style.

Anaya didn't think the Uk would respond militarily. How wrong he was.

[Moulin Yarns]

That would not have been a proportionate response would it and has already been pointed out, there was no nuclear threat.
Conventional surface ships, troops and aircraft didn't stop the invasion, using your logic here they should be binned as well.

I know there was no nuclear threats but when Argentina invaded why did the UK not threaten Argentina with our'deterrent' as it would have saved lives in the armed forces, no?

[marinello59]

I know there was no nuclear threats but when Argentina invaded why did the UK not threaten Argentina with our'deterrent' as it would have saved lives in the armed forces, no?

I think I answered that with my proportionate response comment. Didn't I?

[Moulin Yarns]

I think I answered that with my proportionate response comment. Didn't I?

I know but I'm thinking along the lines of crocodile Dundee. "You call that a knife". Would have been disproportionate but very effective.

I guess what I'm saying is that we have nuclear weapons, had the opportunity to threaten to use them but didn't. So, what is their purpose as a deterrent against a nuclear power when it wasn't even a deterrent against a non nuclear power.

[steakbake]

I know but I'm thinking along the lines of crocodile Dundee. "You call that a knife". Would have been disproportionate but very effective.

I guess what I'm saying is that we have nuclear weapons, had the opportunity to threaten to use them but didn't. So, what is their purpose as a deterrent against a nuclear power when it wasn't even a deterrent against a non nuclear power.

Yes, this is a brilliant point that I think is lost. I can't imagine the discussion would go:

"Ha! We've got the bomb!"
"Yes, so do we..."
"Ok, so what happens now?"

As I see it, the only reason we have it is because we do. And it gives us a seat at the Security Council - something which, in our last military adventure, we studiously avoided and in our apparently imminent one, is blocked by the likes of Russia and China.

I just don't see the point of it at all. A very expensive white elephant.

[marinello59]

Yes, this is a brilliant point that I think is lost. I can't imagine the discussion would go:

"Ha! We've got the bomb!"
"Yes, so do we..."
"Ok, so what happens now?"

As I see it, the only reason we have it is because we do. And it gives us a seat at the Security Council - something which, in our last military adventure, we studiously avoided and in our apparently imminent one, is blocked by the likes of Russia and China.

I just don't see the point of it at all. A very expensive white elephant.

Or. (Playing devil's advocate here.)
"Ha! We've got the bomb!"
"Erm....we don't....."
"You can all give us your lunch money then."

[lord bunberry]

Or. (Playing devil's advocate here.)
"Ha! We've got the bomb!"
"Erm....we don't....."
"You can all give us your lunch money then."
What about "you're no getting our lunch money cause my mate says he'll protect me"
If we're being honest it's Russia and the USA that needs to have them, whoever they keep under their protective umbrella doesn't need them.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I know but I'm thinking along the lines of crocodile Dundee. "You call that a knife". Would have been disproportionate but very effective.

I guess what I'm saying is that we have nuclear weapons, had the opportunity to threaten to use them but didn't. So, what is their purpose as a deterrent against a nuclear power when it wasn't even a deterrent against a non nuclear power.

It's a valid point, useless deterrent if the offender doesn't have it?

[Bristolhibby]

I know but I'm thinking along the lines of crocodile Dundee. "You call that a knife". Would have been disproportionate but very effective.

I guess what I'm saying is that we have nuclear weapons, had the opportunity to threaten to use them but didn't. So, what is their purpose as a deterrent against a nuclear power when it wasn't even a deterrent against a non nuclear power.

You are missing the point. It's not a deterrent against conventional war or terrorism. It's a deterrent against Nuclear war, against total anialation. It worked in the past and hopefully will work in the future. Any enemy state would have to be suicidal to attack another Nuclear armed state in a "one in all in" alliance (NATO).

J

[RyeSloan]

You are missing the point. It's not a deterrent against conventional war or terrorism. It's a deterrent against Nuclear war, against total anialation. It worked in the past and hopefully will work in the future. Any enemy state would have to be suicidal to attack another Nuclear armed state in a "one in all in" alliance (NATO). J

I think I've came to the conclusion that a nuclear world is a given and that the current system of deterrent and suppression of proliferation is probably the least worst option.

To me the question then is if the UK needs an independent stand alone deterrent or if we could farm out that protection. The pros and cons are surely more than just pounds and pence but cost has to be a significant consideration. It seems a pretty pricey insurance policy for a narrow (if rather life ending) risk.

[Moulin Yarns]

You are missing the point. It's not a deterrent against conventional war or terrorism. It's a deterrent against Nuclear war, against total anialation. It worked in the past and hopefully will work in the future. Any enemy state would have to be suicidal to attack another Nuclear armed state in a "one in all in" alliance (NATO).

J

There is my point in your reply.

Argentina attacked a nuclear armed state in the attempt to gain access to minerals and energy resources in the Antarctic. That the Nuclear response was not used shows the futility of having it.

[RyeSloan]

You are missing the point. It's not a deterrent against conventional war or terrorism. It's a deterrent against Nuclear war, against total anialation. It worked in the past and hopefully will work in the future. Any enemy state would have to be suicidal to attack another Nuclear armed state in a "one in all in" alliance (NATO). J

I think I've came to the conclusion that a nuclear world is a given and that the current system of deterrent and suppression of proliferation is probably the least worst option.

To me the question then is if the UK needs an independent stand alone deterrent or if we could farm out that protection. The pros and cons are surely more than just pounds and pence but cost has to be a significant consideration. It seems a pretty pricey insurance policy for a narrow (if rather life ending) risk.

[ronaldo7]

Trident debate today in the commons, where elected Scottish MP's were referred to as Robots, and the Vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament abstained on a vote against renewing Trident.

The world has just turned upside down for Jezza.

[ronaldo7]

How is it the song goes...You don't know what you're doing.

HMS Ocean quietly scrapped after £65Million refit last year. Money seems no object in this Union for bombs, but welfare, and feeding bairns can get tae fek.

https://t.co/LTvjTwkXoo

[Bristolhibby]

There is my point in your reply.

Argentina attacked a nuclear armed state in the attempt to gain access to minerals and energy resources in the Antarctic. That the Nuclear response was not used shows the futility of having it.

No, again missing the point. Nuclear weapons don't prevent war, just Nuclear destruction. Argentina didn't try and Nuke the UK. We can still have conventional wars. Hell, we have had them (Korea) where there were two Nuclear armed belegerants. The point is neither of us nuked each other.

The mutually assured destruction prevented it, and will continue to do so.

Nukeing a country for stealing some of our islands in the South Atlantic is a massive overreaction on our part.

J

[Geo_1875]

No, again missing the point. Nuclear weapons don't prevent war, just Nuclear destruction. Argentina didn't try and Nuke the UK. We can still have conventional wars. Hell, we have had them (Korea) where there were two Nuclear armed belegerants. The point is neither of us nuked each other.

The mutually assured destruction prevented it, and will continue to do so.

Nukeing a country for stealing some of our islands in the South Atlantic is a massive overreaction on our part.

J

But we didn't and we wouldn't have had to. Apparently all that was needed was the threat that we would.

[Moulin Yarns]

Quite a contradiction, Trident is a Nuclear deterrent, or

[QUOTE=Bristolhibby;4511572] Nuclear weapons don't prevent war [QUOTE]

Make your mind up. :greengrin

[marinello59]

Quite a contradiction.

Make your mind up. :greengrin

Where's the contradiction? its only a contradiction as long as you continue to ignore the whole concept of proportionate response and to ignore what threat Trident is there to deter. That can be accepted without affecting the very strong moral and financial arguments against it.

[Bristolhibby]

OK let's spell it out.

Nuclear weapons don't prevent conventional war (that happens all of the time).

They prevent a Nuclear War that leads to total destruction of the belligerents.

It's that second category that is the "deterrent".

J

[Golden Bear]

I've never considered myself to be a true blue Tory voter but in recent few weeks in regard to defence issues I am so glad we have David Cameron at the helm as opposed to sit on the fence politicians like Corbyn and Sturgeon.

[liamh2202]

I've never considered myself to be a true blue Tory voter but in recent few weeks in regard to defence issues I am so glad we have David Cameron at the helm as opposed to sit on the fence politicians like Corbyn and Sturgeon.

Can associate a lot with your view GB,,

[Aldo]

I've never considered myself to be a true blue Tory voter but in recent few weeks in regard to defence issues I am so glad we have David Cameron at the helm as opposed to sit on the fence politicians like Corbyn and Sturgeon.

By all accounts it looks like Corbyn's back benchers are rebelling against him on this matter.

It's bad enough having Cameron as leader but god forbid should Corbyn ever win a GE to become leader. Maybe just send the baddies a letter.