Trident Replacement, are you Yes or No?

[Ootohere]

I am no.

The Nuclear Deterrent is IMO outdated.

 

Submarines and Nuclear Submarines that the UK have will be there to Nuke people & countries after they have Nuked others, so no deterrent just a have the last shot and kill people.

 

Submarines are no longer in this day and age undetectable, the government maybe can not find 

a downed plane or ship in the Oceans, they know where each others subs are, or will soon, 

because the Russians seem to be able to keep hiding from the UK / NATO  Military.

 

Building a Nuclear Deterrent just to keep jobs is a nonsense, 

provide productive jobs building Roads, Rail, Transport, shipping etc, Water, Gas & Electricity, and Manufacturing, 

Building & Maintaining Subs as a means of keeping people in jobs is just keeping those and such as those in Contracts then supposedly to keep a local community alive.

Make real jobs, not ones based around a Nuclear Deterrent if ever used is the end of that community for ever.

 

Billions of spending, billions of wasted money IMO.

http://theferret.scot/westminster-trident-nuclear-independence

Edited 18 July, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[moley]

If all other countries with nuclear weapons ditch theirs then we wouldn't need a nuclear deterrent. The fact that no one has used nuclear weapons since 1945 suggests that having them has maintained a status quo. North Korea, Russia, middle east, IS etc could all be a threat, so on that basis we need something that hopefully we will never have to use.

Edited 18 July, 2016 by moley

[cheezemonkhai]

Agreed, if other countries all got rid of theirs then we could too.

However others have not and are updating theirs. Plus some crazy countries also are aiming to get them.

 

As such we should certainly renew them.

[Hardcore]

Sweden and many other countries don't have nukes and haven't had nukes for either a very long time or ever.
They seem to do just fine.

It's a massive waste of Tax payers money. It could go towards keeping the NHS running or state pensions or helping the homeless and poor.

Anything is more productive than billions being spent on things we can't use and if we could use them would end millions of lifes.

[theezenutz]

No. What kind of a deterrent is It? So a country like Russia is not going to use them because we have some, well they have a lot more than we do.

Any sane person would never use them which leaves the others the rogue nations or terrorist, I can't really see them going "well we've got these nukes now but Britain have just renewed their tridents so we better not" cmon if they want to use them they won't be thinking about the consequences.

I think more effort should be placed on disarming the nuclear powers rather than creating more just so little Britain can feel a little bigger.

[leckman]

At the moment I would rather have the nukes than be without.Hopefully there will be a day we can be nuclear free but sadly not now.

[leckman]

When I was in the MNavy,I was based up in Barrow in Furness for 12 years and actually saw all 4 of the Vanguard class Subs go out on their sea trials,quite an impressive feat of ship building and engineering.

[Ootohere]

Broken down now, still used as a deterrent even though maybe only one goes that far.

Never done anything since you saw them in Barrow in Furness other than cost money and provide employment achieving nothing other than attending to them.

Pointless exercise really do you not think, join the navy to sea the world and become a submariner and see very little.

Train to wipe out others if your country or someone elses is wiped out then die.

[Auric Goldfinger]

Slighty off topic but

 

I personally don't think the nuclear threat is from another country but from a terrorist threat

 

Just think if ISIS managed to get a dirty bomb and detonate it in London or any major city, just think of the consequences.

 

Giving the right money to the right people might just get them one. God forbidd it ever happens but it might.

 

Think about the Lorry murders in Nice, just think if that was also a bomb, hundreds could have been killed

 

 

 

 

Answer to Georges question

 

Yes I'm in,   Nuclear subs for me

Edited 18 July, 2016 by Auric Goldfinger

[SkodaVRS1963]

I am no.

As any sane person would be.

 

Weapons launched from Trident have no legitimate purpose: their use would be illegal under almost every conceivable circumstance as huge numbers of civilian casualties would be unavoidable.

 

Replacing Trident would cost at least £205 billion.  Given that these are Government figures, you can double it and add another 50%.

 

All Governments get their money from the taxpayer; there's no other revenue stream.

 

£500 billion; how do you want to pay?

[Eddie-NL]

During the Cold War I would have said we needed to have them, just like the thousands of main battle tanks.

 

The tanks have gone, we have very few now as the threat has changed. There is no need for the Nukes, the US still have plenty to destroy the world so wouldn't miss our small contribution.

 

Money could be spent on more constructive things which would enhance life instead of destroying it.

[Auric Goldfinger]

During the Cold War I would have said we needed to have them, just like the thousands of main battle tanks.

 

The tanks have gone, we have very few now as the threat has changed. There is no need for the Nukes, the US still have plenty to destroy the world so wouldn't miss our small contribution.

 

Money could be spent on more constructive things which would enhance life instead of destroying it.

 

 

Like mending pot holes   :yes:

[theezenutz]

Yep exactly it's a terrible waste of money in times of hardship and austerity.

It's not really a deterrent though maybe between the superpowers but it's certainly not going to help against terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up to cause harm. They are quite obviously devoid of any fear.

It's pretty much the same argument as the one in America about the banning of firearms. Those for say they need them for defense those against claim less guns equal less murder using guns.

There is very little validation to have a weapon that can destroy the only tangible thing that gives you life, it's like cutting out your own heart, cooking them eating it because you have no food. You can't live without a heart and you live without this Planet.

[gadgetman]

Given N Korea and Iran want them, and we have no idea what the situation will be in 25 years time, I'd say yes. We should renew them.

Hopefully it would be the last time we would need to renew them.

[theezenutz]

Korea maybe a problem but Iran is largely a peaceful country they do not have an extensive history of invading sovereign soil or launching wars of aggression.

I think they made a comment about Israel before but then then again Israel does have a history of disurbing peace in the Middle East.

This is what gives life to countries like Iran wanting to have them to defend themselves from the aggressive stance of western foreign policy.

If NATO are the world police force then they should be the only people with access with something as destructive as a nuclear weapon.

[tweenster]

If NATO are the world police force then they should be the only people with access with something as destructive as a nuclear weapon.

 

And they get them from who? Oh yes, their member states!

 

For many years I have been for the nuclear deterrent, but as we have moved away from the Cold War and into the asymmetric threat era then they are irrelevant, as there is no obvious target to send them too. The cost is simply eye watering as well. So it is a 'No' from me.

 

Does Corbyn still want to keep the subs without the missiles to preserve jobs?

[Dr Zoidberg]

I'm 75% in favour of replacing them though could be persuaded against.

At the moment, and for the near future, the deterrent value isn't as strong as it might have been in the past as there are less credible nuclear threats out there.

In the medium term, and well within the lifespan of the subs, that could all change and we could be facing a real threat again. If so, we might really need a deterrent and not have time to acquire one, and the Cold War proved that it does work.

In addition, saying save the money and spend it on something else is simplistic and unrealistic, and ignores the fact that money spent on the project goes into our economy, keeping a hell of a lot of people in work, directly and indirectly.

[theezenutz]

And they get them from who? Oh yes, their member states!

Of course their is a reported 15000 nukesbon existence so it would seem s little silly to create more. If all member states handed over the red button to nato under an amnesty of sorts then every thing will be fine, their would be no need for wildly waving between nation states they would be under control of an independent, peaceful force as we are led to believe.

It make feel a little bit safer knowing that Trump will never get anywhere near a big red button.

[VWD]

I am no.

The Nuclear Deterrent is IMO outdated.

 

Submarines and Nuclear Submarines that the UK have will be there to Nuke people & countries after they have Nuked others, so no deterrent just a have the last shot and kill people.

 

And that is why it is a deterrent. Surprise on ,say the UK, and UK is flattened. Great, except that country doing this will know that we have the capacity to flatten them. So is it worth the risk.

[theezenutz]

An eye for an eye leaves you blind and toothless.

The Danger of Nuclear War. Michael Chossudovsky - https://youtu.be/gX9Lv7Jc_sQ

[theezenutz]

In addition, saying save the money and spend it on something else is simplistic and unrealistic, and ignores the fact that money spent on the project goes into our economy, keeping a hell of a lot of people in work, directly and indirectly.

Could we not just use that money for the NHS, Infrastructure, Schools or perhaps ending the need for People in the 21st century that require food banks?

 

That £350m a week for the NHS that everyone got their panies in twist over would go along way from £30 billion. Remember only the current active Government can make such a decision. Mrs May are you listening I believe I was one of those you were talking about in your pretty little speech.

[theezenutz]

A sensible well written post I found whilst looking elsewhere.

 

There's no idealism in being against Trident.

It's pure, old-fashioned good sense.

Its costs are unbelievable - and note how the government has been very coy in telling the full story there - and you, quite simply can do nothing with it.

A deterrent cannot be a deterrent if you can't use it, and it is very much the case that you cannot use Trident.

Here, again, the government is being very coy, but the fact is that part of the package you "buy" with Trident are controls against your ever using it independently.

You can only use it with American approval and against American-allocated targets, full stop. Any other possible use has built-in controls against it, and believe me any British enemies know that as well as I do.

American top-level policy does not allow independent nuclear deterrence anywhere. When countries like Ukraine and Belorussia separated from the Soviet Union, they were briefly nuclear powers themselves with Soviet weapons based on their territory. The U.S. quickly disabused them of any illusions, explaining that if they did not give them up for dismantling, they themselves would be targeted by American ICBMs.

All Trident does is make you feel like you're playing in the big leagues, but it's a silly illusion, enjoyed at immense cost.

Moreover, if you want to give Scotland a serious new issue for independence, then buy Trident. The Scots do not like having it based in their country, and Independence leaders there would love to have a hot new issue.

In the end, Trident is at least as much an illusion as "the special relationship" itself is, yet of course we know important people still go on about their special relationship, oblivious to the fact that disgraced Tony Blair provides the quintessential example of what America means by a special relationship.

For America, Britain's having Trident is just one big fat, lovely, long-term subsidy from British taxpayers to the Pentagon, a pretty insane deal from the British point of view.

[Scribbler]

There is only one reason to keep our nuclear deterrent and that is Putin and any future FSB successor. In their extremely macho patriarchal society he will only respect people who can project power. Having three or 4 additional NATO Members with nukes prevents the US and Russia from Sabre rattling and butting horns. We are a distraction and a balanced moral humane voice at a table that would otherwise have two massive egos neither willing to yield. Someone mentioned Sweeden, WTF since when have sweeden ever had a say in anything on the world stage. If we want to influence the world in a beneficial way then we need to be at the table as a respected member. Unfortunately because of Russia's backward views on negotiation we need a big stick. Its very much willy waving but thats how it is still. I don't like it but the alternative is much, much worse. Also someone mentioned that Russia have more nukes than us I think the stockpile more nukes than Nato Combined. China has a worrying amount also. However each one of the warheads on board our subs can deliver a massive amount of destruction we are talking many times the magnitude of Hiroshima. Even Putin isn't stupid enough not to view this as a threat. My greatest worry is that potential future prime ministers Corbyn for example don't give off the wrong signals to Putin because then its colossal waste of money if he gets the keys to the virtual red button. Putin will know hes a spineless tree hugger and will stop taking us seriously regardless of the awesome destructive capability at his disposal.

Edited 18 July, 2016 by Scribbler

[camelspyyder]

 

Pointless exercise really do you not think, join the navy to sea the world and become a submariner and see very little.

 

 

Volunteers only and very well paid (Sergeant level propulsion engineers on £100k - I can see their motivation and it ain't seeing the sights)

 

However, having listened to Scottish commentators today on the radio on this subject, I can see why the OP doesn't want it.

 

Who in their right mind would want Nuclear power (the Subs) on their doorstep, let alone Nuclear weapons (the payloads)

 

Would those in favour above be less keen if they were based in Liverpool, The Midlands, Nuneaton or Nottinghamshire?

 

 

 

Oh I forgot...NO! on cost grounds.

Edited 18 July, 2016 by camelspyyder

[gadgetman]

MPs voted overwhelmingly to renew Trident.