Which is the biggest 'Reckless Gamble'?

[drew]

If you want Trident renewed, why do you want it?

A deterrent. It's worked for 71 years. Maybe in a few years time there will be something that nullifies it but until then we should keep it.

Your analogy with the US gun laws was ridiculous. In America, people buy guns and shoot people. In this country, you'd be hard pressed to find a supplier of nuclear weapons.

 

[drew]

Going to harp on again about 'Command and Control' here (it really is a brilliant book) but I personally find the mere existence of nuclear weaponry to be a terrifying thought, they certainly don't fill me with confidence.

There was an incident in the late 70's / early 80's (I think) where one of the satellite systems designed to detect the launch of a nuclear bombardment started pinging alerts. It was certain that Russia had launched its arsenal in the general direction of the US. What it had actually detected was the moon.

Would you feel more confident if the we got rid of ours and the US did likewise and the only countries in the world with the weapons were China and Russa?

 

[BBassic]

Would you feel more confident if the we got rid of ours and the US did likewise and the only countries in the world with the weapons were China and Russa?

Categorically not. Did you miss this bit? :

I personally find the mere existence of nuclear weaponry to be a terrifying thought

 

[Bold Seagull]

There is no chance Russia would have annexed Crimea if Ukraine hadn't signed away its nuclear weapons in 1994.

That one action has set back nuclear disarmament decades, maybe a century.

A lesson to us all.

That really is a massive conclusion to make. Russia installed deniable ground troops stoking an imaginary rebellion before a largely slow to react world had realised what had happened. It is conjecture to say a deterrent would have prevented this. What with Russia then diplomatically wanting to put it to the Crimean people via referendum on whether they wanted to remain Ukraine or Russia - could we really see a nuclear deterrent preventing this from happening? Ukraine then threatening Russia to withdrawal via its nuclear threat would have been derided by the international community, and Ukraine would have effectively cut its nose off to spite its face.

Once action that could advance nuclear disarmament is disarmament. Radical thought I know.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

That really is a massive conclusion to make. Russia installed deniable ground troops stoking an imaginary rebellion before a largely slow to react world had realised what had happened. It is conjecture to say a deterrent would have prevented this. What with Russia then diplomatically wanting to put it to the Crimean people via referendum on whether they wanted to remain Ukraine or Russia - could we really see a nuclear deterrent preventing this from happening? Ukraine then threatening Russia to withdrawal via its nuclear threat would have been derided by the international community, and Ukraine would have effectively cut its nose off to spite its face.

Once action that could advance nuclear disarmament is disarmament. Radical thought I know.

The Kremlin would always be asking itself 'would the Ukrainians fire a nuke if we go ahead in Crimea'.

And they would never know.

Deterence would be working.


Of course, what happened is that Ukraine disarmed its nuclear forces in exchange for international guarantees - guarantees with signatures which were not worth the ink they were signed with.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The Kremlin would always be asking itself 'would the Ukrainians fire a nuke if we go ahead in Crimea'.

And they would never know.

Deterence would be working.

Of course, what happened is that Ukraine disarmed its nuclear forces in exchange for international guarantees - guarantees with signatures which were not worth the ink they were signed with.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion on a hypothetical conclusion. However plenty do disagree.

 

[heathgate]

We slag off Americans who want guns to protect from others with guns, then vote for Trident.

Spot the massive hypocrisy.

Actually a slight difference...... we don't hand nuclear weapons to toothless rednecks from septicville, Arkansas... or to MC Baggy-Jeans on the corner of Malcolm-x Ave and Billie Jean St.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Perkino]

It is a bit different, in that we don't see toddlers accidentally nuking their mums, or teenagers nuking their schools.

I know but my point is having guns doesn't make it safer...similarly having a large powerful deterrent doesn't mean no one will mess with us in fact it may make us more of a target to conquer/attack especially if those behind it have little or no value for their own lives and would happily see the world destroy itself

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion on a hypothetical conclusion. However plenty do disagree.

Yes, I suspect we will never agree.

I see the worthless guarantees given to Ukraine by the international community in exchange for nuclear disarmament, as a significant event in recent world history which has set back nuclear disarmament decades, or even into the next century.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Nuclear weapons are like the kids expensive pair of trainers or iPhone that the parents can't afford. Buy them and you get into debt, don't buy them and the kid gets humiliated or bullied.

I don't see that the PM has any choice BUT to renew.

Having verbally committed to carrying out Brexit it would be then doubly mad to not renew our nuclear capability because we'd then be sending out a message to the world that Britain is no longer a global player, and that is not an impression you want to send out when you are about to embark on a decade-long round of trade talks with every trading bloc in the world.

However, the sad reality is that, ultimately, we are paying for a status symbol. If we are being brutally honest then I can't see that any British Prime Minister would ever press the red button in any circumstances, ever.

 

[Seagull58]

Are the missiles and warheads not made, designed and serviced in the US? Don't the subs spend much of their lives being serviced in the US? While we may not need their permission, it is fair to say the system itself is entirely reliant on the US.

The other thing they don't tell is the renewal is £30bn, but there is a huge decommissioning cost of the existing system, then the running costs of the new system. It is all a bit eye watering for a Cold War weapons system.

The missiles and warheads are only a small part of the onging service and maintenance cost. The subs are serviced at Devonport, with some ongoing maintenance at Faslane.

 

[jameswestport]

After reading this I think the only logical answer is answer is MORE nuclear warheads

 

[Seagull58]

Yes, but if I am about to go into a fight with a small pistol in my hand, is my pistol the deterrent to my would be attackers, or the 100 people stood behind me with AK47s?

If you and your pistol cannot be stopped from firing the first shot and killing the opponent then, yes, it's a good deterrent.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If you and your pistol cannot be stopped from firing the first shot and killing the opponent then, yes, it's a good deterrent.

If you fire the first shot, then it's no longer a deterrent is it!

 

[Baldseagull]

Doesn't really matter if it gets taken out at the end of the day or not, when you think about it. If someone was intent on a nuclear attack on the UK, they'd have more to worry about than where our subs were.

I have thought about, and I think it matters.

 

[Baldseagull]

That really is a massive conclusion to make. Russia installed deniable ground troops stoking an imaginary rebellion before a largely slow to react world had realised what had happened. It is conjecture to say a deterrent would have prevented this. What with Russia then diplomatically wanting to put it to the Crimean people via referendum on whether they wanted to remain Ukraine or Russia - could we really see a nuclear deterrent preventing this from happening? Ukraine then threatening Russia to withdrawal via its nuclear threat would have been derided by the international community, and Ukraine would have effectively cut its nose off to spite its face.

Once action that could advance nuclear disarmament is disarmament. Radical thought I know.

Why not go the whole hog and get rid of all our armed forces?

 

[Baldseagull]

Nuclear weapons are like the kids expensive pair of trainers or iPhone that the parents can't afford. Buy them and you get into debt, don't buy them and the kid gets humiliated or bullied.

I don't see that the PM has any choice BUT to renew.

Having verbally committed to carrying out Brexit it would be then doubly mad to not renew our nuclear capability because we'd then be sending out a message to the world that Britain is no longer a global player, and that is not an impression you want to send out when you are about to embark on a decade-long round of trade talks with every trading bloc in the world.

However, the sad reality is that, ultimately, we are paying for a status symbol. If we are being brutally honest then I can't see that any British Prime Minister would ever press the red button in any circumstances, ever.

Trident subs have sealed orders aboard, in the event that the UK comes under attack and the chain of command is taken out. I have no idea what those orders are, and they are I understand reviewed with each new parliament, I suspect some of our leaders are far more willing to retaliate than you might think.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Why not go the whole hog and get rid of all our armed forces?

You can't work out the difference between a nuclear deterrent and conventional armed forces?

 

[Baldseagull]

You can't work out the difference between a nuclear deterrent and conventional armed forces?

They are part of the same tool kit, I can see the difference, but it seems you cannot see the similarity. You ever heard the expression, "you don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against Nuclear weapons firstly, and against a larger or superior conventional force secondly.

 

[Bold Seagull]

They are part of the same tool kit, I can see the difference, but it seems you cannot see the similarity. You ever heard the expression, "you don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against Nuclear weapons firstly, and against a larger or superior conventional force secondly.

The most essential point you are missing about the word 'deterrent' is that if you need to use it, then it has failed in its principle purpose. The whole point of having it has failed.

There is no similarity really. We keep our armed forces for actual combat, defence and peace keeping operations. It is there for an active role in the defence of our realm or people who need our help.

Our nuclear deterrent is only to deter a nuclear attack on us. It serves no other purpose. If you need to use it, it has failed, and in all likelihood, most of us will be dead.