Which is the biggest 'Reckless Gamble'?

[Bold Seagull]

Brilliant.

 

[Seagull58]

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

I said "if you cannot be stopped". It's a deterrent because it cannot be stopped from hitting it's target if required to do so. I shouldn't have said the first shot. I meant that is a guarantee to destroy whoever attempts to destroy us.

 

[Seagull58]

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.

No, that' not right. It's there as a deterrent against a nuclear attack or a conventional military attack.

 

[Diego Napier]

As there is no referendum on Trident it is a false comparison.

Is it a joke or are you a bit slow?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Michael Fallon this morning on 5Live, said the only way to convince the world regarding nuclear disarmament and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons - is by having nuclear weapons.

Now, he tried to explain this logic to Nicky Campbell, but I think he got lost within his own oxymoron.

Yes. And even worse, when Campbell said 'what will you do, having located the nukes in Scotland, if Scotland has another UKexit vote and opts to leave?', he replied along the lines of 'that isn't going to happen'. He sounded as ready with a Plan B as did Sven Goren Erikson . . . .

 

[ManOfSussex]

Yes. And even worse, when Campbell said 'what will you do, having located the nukes in Scotland, if Scotland has another UKexit vote and opts to leave?', he replied along the lines of 'that isn't going to happen'. He sounded as ready with a Plan B as did Sven Goren Erikson . . . .

There has to be a contingency put in place for an alternative to Faslane and Coulport if this is renewed. Cumbria would be my choice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977

 

[Seagull1989]

I personally don't want to see the day that trident is needed. If it is then we're not going to be here to see what the effect is. I would definitely vote to get rid of it. Complete waste of money .

 

[Guy Fawkes]

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

So which country or countries would you want to be the only ones to have nuclear weapons? and why do you trust them not to divide up the world between them, especially as natural resources become more scarce and competition to secure them becomes more crucial?

Total disarmament of every country is impossible, how do you trust them not to hide some away (falsely claim they have less than they really do when starting the process) or be able to re-arm quickly once everyone else's weapons are gone

 

[DataPoint]

Renew the Trident Subs and reinforce Hadrian's Wall.

We must convince Scotland's occupiers that the consequence's of invading England is a price not worth paying.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Trident would never be used, I'd rather the money was spent on schools and the NHS and improving the nation's infrastructure than having a MASSIVE weapon that nobody is ever going to use

So a bit like having a smoke alarm, sprinkler system and knowing that there is a fire engine that can be there quickly should your house catch fire. The likelihood you actually need them is very small so would it be better to not bother and spend that cash elsewhere (food, clothes, etc instead)

Elsewhere on this thread and in past discussions on this matter, it was said that nukes were never going to be used if a British overseas territory is invaded. Also comments have been made that we could rely on other countries that have nukes to protect us from attack (mainly the US) - but are they (the US) likely to do anything should we (the UK) get invaded, especially if it was another country with nuclear capability like (for example, Russia?) and would that country invade if we still had nukes?

 

[knocky1]

The SOLUTION is that we scrap Trident. The money saved is spent on health and education. Those who want Trident can then run marathons, eat 50 pies, climb up the three Peaks or any other form of fundraising for their beloved Trident. McMillan and hundreds of hospices would love the reversal.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There has to be a contingency put in place for an alternative to Faslane and Coulport if this is renewed. Cumbria would be my choice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977

Absolutely. Brexit has been decided. Time for a bit of honesty. Personally I have vaccilated over our 'independent' nuclear deterrent, having been against at one point. My view now is that all the while the world has them, and given that we have them, and given that the consensus view among the world's larger nations is that having them has contributed to peace (impossible hypothesis to test since you would need a tardis and the power to run history again), then it seems a bit out on a lim to be the first major nation to disarm. That said we were the first major nation to Brexit, so anything is possible I suppose.

But if we assume for a moment we will retain the nukes, and even upgrade them perhaps, then we need a safe place to locate them. A part of the UK that could well not be part of the UK in 5, 10 or 20 years' time does not seem like a smart location. To pretend otherwise is crass. Fallon, FFS!

To be fair, I think the independent nuclear deterrent ought to be located in Brexit heartland. Mid Sussex, perhaps? Or if it needs to be somewhere that submarines can be launched, why not Southampton? Or perhaps the Thames estuary somewhere? Only fair, really. And given the predeluiction for nuclear deterrence and Brexit, I am sure this will be a MASSIVE vote winner for Theresa, down south. Landslide general election majority guaranteed. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

My view now is that all the while the world has them, and given that we have them, and given that the consensus view among the world's larger nations is that having them has contributed to peace (impossible hypothesis to test since you would need a tardis and the power to run history again)

Well looking at one of the major conflicts that has occurred since they have been around, Vietnam, it could be argued that it stopped this conflict from becoming something much, much bigger, possibly a 3rd world war if there had been only conventional weapons

Vietnam was a battle of 2 ideologies (Communism vs Capitalism) China was an ally of the communist North and supplied them and helped prevent their defeat at one point by the supply of arms, etc.

Would is have spilled over into something more if allowed it was allowed to escalate and did nuclear weapons stop direct involvement by Chinese forces against the US forces in the area (add in the allies who may then join in so communist Russia with China and countries like the UK with the US) - the threat of nukes could have put a check on this and prevented a far wider and deadlier war

(although impossible to prove as you say)

 

[Diablo]

Indeed they don't do they ? Nice, Bataclan etc

Silly to think Trident will stop fanatic with truck or machine gun...However it may well deter invasion by another nation.

 

[portslade seagull]

Trident would never be used, I'd rather the money was spent on schools and the NHS and improving the nation's infrastructure than having a MASSIVE weapon that nobody is ever going to use

What like you supposedly ( massive weapon that is not used )

 

[Pavilionaire]

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.

Then why would any aggressor take out the chain of command? If they are mad enough to fire first they're mad enough to risk the consequences, but if the UK chain of command is still intact would the leader of the day ever decide to retaliate and have blood on their hands?

If you nuke a country then tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, will die. In historical terms we've been on both sides, i.e. been allied to - and gone to war against - pretty much all the world powers in the last 300 years. It's hard to envisage the UK ever sanctioning strikes against any of the global superpowers because with modern technology and communications the world is so interconnected.

 

[melias shoes]

 

[ManOfSussex]

MPs back renewal of Trident nuclear weapons programme, voting 472 to 117 in favour in House of Commons.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Up to 41 billion quid.
Such a shame that we do need it, because whatever your views that is a helluva lot of money, just think what we could do with it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Up to 41 billion quid.
Such a shame that we do need it, because whatever your views that is a helluva lot of money, just think what we could do with it.

I think (not been following recently) one of the arguments is it highlights the UK on the world stage (pros and cons) which helps winning contracts etc.