Trident.......yes or no

[Lincoln Imp]

Amalgamate our nuclear capability with France's. Neither country can really afford it, both countries feel they need it and it is inconceivable that we would ever be on opposite sides in a nuclear war. Do the same with aircraft carriers whilst we're about it.

 

[franks brother]

Trident is a waste of money. The minute the nuclear bombs start flying we are all finished. If anyone seriously thinks having a few nuclear weapons would make the difference, they're crazy. Spend the money on something worthwhile.

 

[beorhthelm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Trident missile system entirely dependent on the USA, so we can't decide to fire any without their permission and cooperation?

In which case I see no point in us paying to keep it at all.

this is a popular myth, we dont know for sure. we are told we have a independent system, so unless we are being outright lied to, then we should assume it is and we don't need US authority. now i know what some would say to that, but I cant imagine the politicians would fight for it and such an expensive system if they didn't have control.

as to the question, i find myself on the fence. i believe we should keep it in principle - you cant get it back once you give it up - but i don't see how we can justify the cost when conventional forces that have been run down to the bone. it doesn't cost as much as the opponents portray (seem to always cite the life time cost, not the yearly) but if we cant deploy more than a half dozen bombers i think that should be addressed first. a cheaper option needs to be found.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Trident is a waste of money. The minute the nuclear bombs start flying we are all finished. If anyone seriously thinks having a few nuclear weapons would make the difference, they're crazy. Spend the money on something worthwhile.

Yes but by having them - we stop Nuclear warfare.

 

[glasfryn]

Yes but by having them - we stop Nuclear warfare.

so if for instance we get involved in a nuclear war how is that going to keep you and everyone else alive.
bit playground all this we've got them so we are going to hurt you with them, now would that make the slightest difference if you had some as well.
we will all be dead
use the money on something more worthwile

 

[Surf's Up]

I'd get rid. Can't see the point - if push came to shove we'd pretty soon be either obliterated by a superior nuclear power or overrun by a superior military power. Time we opted for neutrality and let's spend the money on the really important things like healthcare, social care and education. Failing that I'd conduct a seriously critical review of the Ministry of Defence. The amount of dosh they piss against the wall with incompetent tendering processes, wasteful purchasing and general maladministration is, by all accounts, appalling.

 

[glasfryn]

I'd get rid. Can't see the point - if push came to shove we'd pretty soon be either obliterated by a superior nuclear power or overrun by a superior military power. Time we opted for neutrality and let's spend the money on the really important things like healthcare, social care and education. Failing that I'd conduct a seriously critical review of the Ministry of Defence. The amount of dosh they piss against the wall with incompetent tendering processes, wasteful purchasing and general maladministration is, by all accounts, appalling.

we are thinking on the same lines here

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

so if for instance we get involved in a nuclear war how is that going to keep you and everyone else alive.
bit playground all this we've got them so we are going to hurt you with them, now would that make the slightest difference if you had some as well.
we will all be dead
use the money on something more worthwile

That's the thing - we would never use them - they are a necessary deterrent. Just look at Ukraine.
It's (of sorts) a mexican standoff - but no Country would push the button. I come back to my first point - no NPT states have gone to war with each other since 1945.

 

[simmo]

so if for instance we get involved in a nuclear war how is that going to keep you and everyone else alive.
bit playground all this we've got them so we are going to hurt you with them, now would that make the slightest difference if you had some as well.
we will all be dead
use the money on something more worthwile

But I am not quite sure you see the point of what they truly primarily are. In that they are the ultimate deterent.

It is the THREAT of a nuclear strike that stops a conventional war for example a seabourne invasion of the British Isles (a scenario Britain faced in 1940).

The question no-one (including our enemies) can answer is....would the British PM ever use them.

If there is ever a global nuclear War (God forbid) everyone loses.....see MAD theory

 

[The Spanish]

they will get used at some point in the next few decades, dont worry about that.

 

[Diablo]

Yes Yes Yes.... It is a deterent to any aggressor ....yes if used we are probably all dead..but aggressor less likely to challenge us if we are strong....A bully like Putin happy to invade Georgia/Crimea/Ukraine...He wouldn`t if they had(perish the thought) Nuclear capability.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

A defence "club" only works if people pay their way. Doesn't mean everyone pays the same as there are different circumstances for all but expecting the US to do all is not credible. Anyway regardless 2.2% of GDP is reasonable for a sovereign state to protect itself. I suspect I spend that much protecting my personal belongings and house.

I'm on the fence on this one. I certainly don't think we shouldn't have armed forces.

That said how much of a deterrent is it? For a sane 'hostile' leader, i accept it would deter them. But for a looney? Not so sure. Perhaps the money would be better spent on cyber espionage and securing against it.

There is also the danger of it, if there is a nuclear war we risk preemptive strikes against us. Also less likely, in the foreseeable future, what happens if we get a looney on the end of our red button?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Amalgamate our nuclear capability with France's. Neither country can really afford it, both countries feel they need it and it is inconceivable that we would ever be on opposite sides in a nuclear war. Do the same with aircraft carriers whilst we're about it.

Or enlarge it out to NATO, get everyone to pay for a unified deterrent. Not sure how that would work in practice though.

 

[yxee]

I'm on the fence on this one. I certainly don't think we shouldn't have armed forces.

That said how much of a deterrent is it? For a sane 'hostile' leader, i accept it would deter them. But for a looney? Not so sure. Perhaps the money would be better spent on cyber espionage and securing against it.

There is also the danger of it, if there is a nuclear war we risk preemptive strikes against us. Also less likely, in the foreseeable future, what happens if we get a looney on the end of our red button?

A pre-emptive strike only makes sense if it has any chance of disabling our ability to retaliate.

If we have trident then that chance is extremely low.

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course the smart thing is get rid and stop paying for it, but pretend we still have it

How do you know we haven't already done that?

 

[Diablo]

I'm on the fence on this one. I certainly don't think we shouldn't have armed forces.

That said how much of a deterrent is it? For a sane 'hostile' leader, i accept it would deter them. But for a looney? Not so sure. Perhaps the money would be better spent on cyber espionage and securing against it.

There is also the danger of it, if there is a nuclear war we risk preemptive strikes against us. Also less likely, in the foreseeable future, what happens if we get a looney on the end of our red button?

Agree with your Looney comment....Although Lord Sutch died in 1999, not sure if his party still going.

 

[Hampster Gull]

seems most Re debating where to spend our defence money, which is a sensible place to be.

There are those though that think there are better things to spend our money on. National security is one of the core principles of a state. We can all debate whether its nuclear or not but I think 2.2% of our gdp in defence is perfectly reasonable amount. The NHS is c8% (was only 5% in early 90s).

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

A pre-emptive strike only makes sense if it has any chance of disabling our ability to retaliate.

If we have trident then that chance is extremely low.

That's true.

In the doomsday scenario though, where russia launches, if we have missiles we'll have some headed our way. If we were to get rid maybe we'd be taken off the list sometime down the road.

 

[Charlies Shinpad]

I sit on the fence on this one - I don't understand why we can't keep what we've got rather than renew it ?

Also, maybe someone can explain to me, why each sub carries 16 missiles but only 3 warheads ? What are they meant to do once three have been fired ?

As someone who used to serve on these boats I can explain that each missile has three warheads
Every missile has a different target
And all 16 missiles can be fired in a certain time because once you have launched the first missile everyone will know where you are and basically you have signed your own death warrant but you should get all your missiles away by the time they wipe you out..... Hopefully

 

[Diego Napier]

Yes

Mutually assured destruction has kept the major powers from starting WW111.

That's what those with a vested interest in keeping you fearful would have you believe.

It's far more likely that the economic deterrent is in play. In spite of the bellicose rhetoric in which some countries indulge, the civilised world is inextricably intertwined through it's trading relationships. China has fuelled their amazing growth through forging trade agreements throughout the world. They're not one of "us" and they have a nuclear "deterrent", how does MAD equate to our cosy business relationship with them. Do you think that their leaders countless billions of Yen aren't invested in the West? Do you think that they would be any more happy than Western leaders to see their luxurious lifestyles go up in smoke. Do you not think that Putin and his cronies have invested countless billions of Roubles in the UK property and stock markets as well as those in Europe and the US? Do you think that they and their wives would wave goodbye to all that they've invested for themselves and their children and children's children?

The real threat to the Western world is the motivated extremist "have nots", not the excessively wealthy "haves". The nuclear threat is no deterrent those terrorists either.