Trident replacement

[brakespear]

If China wanted to take on the world it could, but why would it when it can sell to us all instead?

If you look at countries like Iran they believe it is hypocrisy that we have nuclear weapons but tell them they can't. Why I disagree with what Iran are doing they have a fair point.

If I look at our place in the modern world I would like to see us as a similar 'player' to Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries. None of these have nuclear defense systems in place...

This.

 

[cunning fergus]

Even more fundamental reason why it we wont get rid of them is the impact the loss would have on the egos' of our political masters. we know the cut of the Tory jib they want to keep them for the influence they allow Britain to have.

The other side is more as always are hypocritical c*nts. Like Peter Hain, who like many key players in the Labour party was a long time supporter of CND. Yet once he got his feet under the cabinet table he voted to keep nuclear weapons. What a disgrace.

What the nuclear disarmament issue tells us is there are plenty of MPs (typically Labour) who are prepared to comprimise their long deeply held political principles for the opportunity to sit in a position of influence at the Global top table. I think it really is that simple.

If we give them up we will need to vacate our seat on the UN security council and like their fellow left wingers in the Labour party the Lib Dems will be backtracking on their policy faster than an Italian tank once the scent of global power and political ambition is wafting around their nostrils.

Oh yeah I forgot.......they already have!!!

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

Excellent post - just one minor correction is that NATO doesnt havea no first use policy - it stems from the beleif that the only way to stop a conventional assault from the Soviets would have been a nuclear strike. In reality though it is now an unwritten policy. No first use policies are though in general not worth the paper they are written on, the Soviets had a no first use policy but they would have used nukes almost immediately in the case of any war.

This is such an emptive subject [almost as much as which political party you support]
However, I think several of you are missing the fundamental purpose of a "deterrent" and how it actually deters. It's not unlike an insurance policy, you pay out hoping you never need it, but if you don't have it and something goes wrong, you are well and truly fcuked.

For the nuclear deterrent, any nation who choses to fire on us must know they will likely receive retaliation. NATO as an agrement never to be the first to strike [unlike in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks].

I believe we are all correct to suggest that Russia and China are no longer the nuclear threat to us. But if Iran or North Korea could strike us knowing we have nothing to retailiate with, I personnaly believe this to be quite a high risk.

A burgular alarm is a deterrent, it won't stop me being burgled, but increases the risk of a purpertrator being caught. It costs me about £150 a year in a maintenance contract. I'm now skint, so should I throw this deterent away? Like our country I don't harbour immense treasures so ought not to be a target, but just in case ....

 

[Don Quixote]

Britain in twenty years will not be a major player in the world. Germany is a richer, more powerful country than us and they don't have nuclear weapons, why does this country need it? People seem to have an over inflated view on this country, thinking it to still be a major power. This is not the case anymore and we have to accept it.

 

[ryeseagull]

Because as long as France has nuclear weapons I want Britain to aswell. Never trust the French.

Can you imagine Europe with France as the sole nuclear power? They're intolerable as it is.

Still, I'm not convinced it is worth it.

 

[bhaexpress]

The simple matter is that if Hitler had known that we (or any of the allies) could have hit back to the same extent that we could now World War Two would not have happened, at least not on the scale it did. Stupid but true.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Britain in twenty years will not be a major player in the world. Germany is a richer, more powerful country than us and they don't have nuclear weapons, why does this country need it? People seem to have an over inflated view on this country, thinking it to still be a major power. This is not the case anymore and we have to accept it.

If you go back in recent history [I'm no historian by the way] has anyone ever tried to invade Germany?

Whereas little ole blighty has often been the target of many a chancer.

Why is that?

We need defending I say, and a deterant is the answer. Unfortunately, Hadrians wall or the great wall of China are no longer suitable in modern warfare. But maybe they cost proportiantely the same?

 

[Trufflehound]

If anyone tries to invade we should get a giant catapult and fling nuns at them - sharpened to a point at one end and titanium-tipped for maximum armour penetration.

 

[bhaexpress]

If anyone tries to invade we should get a giant catapult and fling nuns at them - sharpened to a point at one end and titanium-tipped for maximum armour penetration.

We could use Leeds, Southampton and Palace fans but as they're all so full of shit we'd be breaking the Geneva Convention over biological weapons.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I think we should keep a nuclear deterant program like Trident

The world is a fast changing place with countries like Iran and North Korea looking to develop a nuclear weapon, and other neighbouring countries who are hostile to each other already having the weapons like Pakistan and India.

Our system could be required to act as a deterant to help prevent an attack by any of these countries on a country they see as their enemy, (maybe eventually even us) we are famous internationally as peacekeepers, this could be a part of an important future role in trying to maintain world peace.

Also without them could we end up relying on the US too much for defensive cover and could our value to them diminish as a result of losing these weapons?

What if the US went empire mad and started invading other countries, mainly after precious resourses as their oil runs out, looking to keep their high standards of life they enjoy.

 

[beorhthelm]

What if the US went empire mad and started invading other countries, mainly after precious resourses as their oil runs out, looking to keep their high standards of life they enjoy.

what do you mean, "if"

 

[Guy Fawkes]

what do you mean, "if"

Fair point - what i mean is other countries might need to use the threat of nuclear attack to prevent this as the US is too strong otherwise to control if it decided to become a power mad empire grabbing country rather than the the current oil supply grabbing country they are now.

 

[folkestonesgull]

So if the oil runs out, the world turns to sh*t and there are multiple global wars in the hunt for the last remaining reserves it would be to our advantage to have a nuclear system how?

If thats what is going to happen surely the £50 billion (and lets be honest when has a defence project ever come in on target cost?) should be invested in technologies that remove our reliance on oil. We would then not need a deterrant as we wouldn't be fighting.

 

[Napper]

Tories and Libs already bitching....joy of joys

For the poll, bigger and better for me

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

That's the entire point - no we won't see it working, but that is PRECISELY why it is a deterrent.

"Deterrent"? Hmmm.. Didn't deter General Galtieri from invading the Falklands in 1982 though, did it!

Unless you mean that maybe the "deterrent" only works against other countries who also have nukes, yes? So an argument for lasting world peace that requires ALL countries to have their own independent "deterrents"? I'm listening...

Except, the "deterrent" won't quite work on an Iran that's armed with nukes controlled by a bunch of crazed wannabe Islamist martyrs, will it... Back to the drawing board...

One quite important thing. For the "deterrent" to work, the other side actually has to be convinced that the button-pusher in chief - such as the Very Christian Tony Blair - really would be happy to instantly annihilate millions of people at once, as well as irradiating large swathes of the world, rendering them uninhabitable for centuries.

Think about it: the only country ever to have actually fired off nukes for real - the USA - remains the most threatened and consequently paranoid regime on the planet. All those thousands of warheads certainly didn't deter 19 suicidal nutters armed with plane tickets, did they?

But even if "deterrents" did work, the idea that Britain would somehow have a real need to be able to fire off its own nukes, totally independently of the USA, when it's already a NATO country - is frankly bizarre.

Even in the UK, a great many senior military figures agree that nuclear weapons have absolutely zero strategic value. And they'd like the money spent instead on something that does.

In short, nukes are just about the most ludicrous form of useless, obsolete willy-waving ever invented. Get rid.

 

[folkestonesgull]

what gulliver said

 

[sparkie]

Because as long as France has nuclear weapons I want Britain to aswell. Never trust the French.

Reminds me of something Sir Humphrey once said in YES, PM

 

[Dave the OAP]

Talking of Mr Humphrey, does anyone remember the episode where Hacker wa sbeing asked by the Professor when he would actually press the button.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

28 seconds in!!! GENIUS

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

"Deterrent"? Hmmm.. Didn't deter General Galtieri from invading the Falklands in 1982 though, did it!

But it did deter the Soviet Union from invading Western Europe - unless you can prove otherwise?

Unless you mean that maybe the "deterrent" only works against other countries who also have nukes, yes? So an argument for lasting world peace that requires ALL countries to have their own independent "deterrents"? I'm listening...

could be a solution there has never been a proper shooting war between two nuclear armed countries

Except, the "deterrent" won't quite work on an Iran that's armed with nukes controlled by a bunch of crazed wannabe Islamist martyrs, will it... Back to the drawing board...

How do you know that - while these countries may not be the most straightforward of opponents they are all linked by one thing - the desire to stay in power, and starting a nuclear war is a surefire way of stopping that. Even if they cant be deterred, what do we do then - stand back and let them take over the world?

One quite important thing. For the "deterrent" to work, the other side actually has to be convinced that the button-pusher in chief - such as the Very Christian Tony Blair - really would be happy to instantly annihilate millions of people at once, as well as irradiating large swathes of the world, rendering them uninhabitable for centuries.

You really dont understand what nuclear weapons do, do you. They dont need to be 100% sure - there just needs to be the chance that this could be the consequence of their actions.

Think about it: the only country ever to have actually fired off nukes for real - the USA - remains the most threatened and consequently paranoid regime on the planet. All those thousands of warheads certainly didn't deter 19 suicidal nutters armed with plane tickets, did they?

So because it doesnt work against one type of threat you abandon it - by that logic I am sure that banning liquids and stanley knives from being carried on board planes will deter Iran, North Korea etc etc from their carrying on developing their missile and nuke programmes and deter China from any future military action? No, you need a variety of responses to the threats that a country faces ranging from airport scanners to nukes and many points in between.

But even if "deterrents" did work, the idea that Britain would somehow have a real need to be able to fire off its own nukes, totally independently of the USA, when it's already a NATO country - is frankly bizarre.

Until the day when the US says, hold on, why should our taxpayers guarantee your security

Even in the UK, a great many senior military figures agree that nuclear weapons have absolutely zero strategic value. And they'd like the money spent instead on something that does.

99% of whom are from the army and the navy who unsurprisingly would like to get their hands on a budget that currently sits with the Navy. Nukes are the ultimate strategic weapon - they have very little tactcal value admittedly, but strategic they most certainly are.

In short, nukes are just about the most ludicrous form of useless, obsolete willy-waving ever invented. Get rid.

 

[Cromwell Road Gull]

Britain’s status as a leading world power, and its ability to influence crucial foreign policy debates, such as how to handle Iran, is contingent on our permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council, which requires us to maintain our nuclear deterrent. After all, you can’t talk softly if you don’t have a big stick at hand.

And without Trident Britain would lose its P5 seat and be relegated to the status of a scandanavian country.