Which is the biggest 'Reckless Gamble'?

[BadFish]

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

Nuclear weapons are also actually a deterrent rather than a perceived one.

 

[Brovion]

Nuclear weapons are not there, or ever were there to be a deterrent for terrorists, you do not nuke a lorry on your own territory.

Precisely! Nuclear weapons are far too big and clumsy to be used in this war, and they have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil. Ergo in the 21st century nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent, they have not helped the French people one iota. The world has changed since the dawn of the nuclear age. Conflict is no longer simply nation states facing each other with people weighing up whether our tanks, bombs, planes etc will beat theirs on a physical battlefield.

You could argue, correctly, that the threat of an attack by a another nation state hasn't totally gone away, what with that nasty Mr Putin ratting his sword - but that's why we've got NATO where an attack on one is an attack on all.. Britain already has access to all the nuclear weapons it will ever need,, so let America do the 'big iron' and let us spend our military budget on and the people and equipment needed to fight the asymmetric and non-traditional wars of the 21st century. (That includes protecting the internet from being bought down by the Russians or Chinese. Nukes won't help there either).

If NATO disappears or the terms change then we can have this argument again. Currently you and all the other people who want to keep Trident are making the same mistake that the British always made throughout the 20th century - planning to fight the next war with the weapons and tactics of the last.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Precisely! Nuclear weapons are far too big and clumsy to be used in this war, and they have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil. Ergo in the 21st century nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent, they have not helped the French people one iota. The world has changed since the dawn of the nuclear age. Conflict is no longer simply nation states facing each other with people weighing up whether our tanks, bombs, planes etc will beat theirs on a physical battlefield.

You could argue, correctly, that the threat of an attack by a another nation state hasn't totally gone away, what with that nasty Mr Putin ratting his sword - but that's why we've got NATO where an attack on one is an attack on all.. Britain already has access to all the nuclear weapons it will ever need,, so let America do the 'big iron' and let us spend our military budget on and the people and equipment needed to fight the asymmetric and non-traditional wars of the 21st century. (That includes protecting the internet from being bought down by the Russians or Chinese. Nukes won't help there either).

If NATO disappears or the terms change then we can have this argument again. Currently you and all the other people who want to keep Trident are making the same mistake that the British always made throughout the 20th century - planning to fight the next war with the weapons and tactics of the last.

It's because of NATO, that we can have Trident. It's a facile argument that it hasn't acted as a deterrent. It has, & been successful as a deterrent. Nuclear weapons can take out one city at a time, so an attack could wipe out Manchester, for example. How many people would die before we surrendered?
Hopefully it will never be used.

 

[Brovion]

It's because of NATO, that we can have Trident. It's a facile argument that it hasn't acted as a deterrent. It has, & been successful as a deterrent. Nuclear weapons can take out one city at a time, so an attack could wipe out Manchester, for example. How many people would die before we surrendered?
Hopefully it will never be used.

HOW has it been successful as a deterrent? Who was going to attack us until they realised we had four submarines with nuclear missiles? And you are making exactly the mistake I warned about - looking back instead of looking forward.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Precisely! Nuclear weapons are far too big and clumsy to be used in this war, and they have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil. Ergo in the 21st century nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent, they have not helped the French people one iota. The world has changed since the dawn of the nuclear age. Conflict is no longer simply nation states facing each other with people weighing up whether our tanks, bombs, planes etc will beat theirs on a physical battlefield.

You could argue, correctly, that the threat of an attack by a another nation state hasn't totally gone away, what with that nasty Mr Putin ratting his sword - but that's why we've got NATO where an attack on one is an attack on all.. Britain already has access to all the nuclear weapons it will ever need,, so let America do the 'big iron' and let us spend our military budget on and the people and equipment needed to fight the asymmetric and non-traditional wars of the 21st century. (That includes protecting the internet from being bought down by the Russians or Chinese. Nukes won't help there either).

If NATO disappears or the terms change then we can have this argument again. Currently you and all the other people who want to keep Trident are making the same mistake that the British always made throughout the 20th century - planning to fight the next war with the weapons and tactics of the last.

We are only halfway through the second decade of the 21st century so maybe it's a bit premature to make claims like that. Aren't you making the same mistake all people who favour unilateral disarmament make .. assume you know what threats we will face in 10,20,30 years time? The scenario you highlight also shows the flaws of your position. If NATO did disappear or break up for whatever reason how long would it take to reconstitute an effective Nuclear deterrent?

Basically your saying that you are happy to outsource some of our defence relying on the goodwill of the US to provide a Nuclear deterrent umbrella. Considering who one of the main Presidential contenders is I would say that's a high risk strategy. We should be responsible for our own defence and be the ones making the ultimate decisions ... not a possible President X (Trump).

As to the wider point of does Nuclear deterrence work I would say the evidence is pretty convincing. The Cold war didn't escalate to a Worldwide hot war despite numerous flash points. India and Pakistan manage to keep a lid on tensions re Kashmir. There is a reason no one suggests military intervention in North Korea or in any other nation that has a nuclear capability.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

HOW has it been successful as a deterrent? Who was going to attack us until they realised we had four submarines with nuclear missiles? And you are making exactly the mistake I warned about - looking back instead of looking forward.

The Cuban missile crisis showed that having nuclear warheads aimed a specific targets prevented an attack. Russia's bluff was called. Yes, I'm looking back, but if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Is the world any safer now? No, I would say it's less safe. Trident is one form of defence, and we have many other forms for different types of threats.

 

[fat old 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

Ernest what are you taking? You're talking sense, pull yourself together man. Though personally, neither myself nor Mrs FOS* know anything about these MASSIVE weapons you boast about.

*Well, of course I can't vouch for her ignorance on this matter, especially as she's been coming home of late with a larger than usual smile on her face.

 

[GOM]

Precisely! Nuclear weapons are far too big and clumsy to be used in this war, and they have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil. Ergo in the 21st century nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent, they have not helped the French people one iota. .....

By your very own logic then, conventional forces have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil.

Also The police have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil.

The police haven't stopped crime either.

Perhaps by your logic we should do away with all armies and the police.

 

[Ernest]

If there was a referendum which there won't be anymore saying renew Trident or spend the money on the NHS, Schools, Transports etc it would be overwhelming in favour of the latter.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If there was a referendum which there won't be anymore saying renew Trident or spend the money on the NHS, Schools, Transports etc it would be overwhelming in favour of the latter.

Putin would vote 100 million times.

 

[Bold Seagull]

 

[Jim D]

If there was a referendum which there won't be anymore saying renew Trident or spend the money on the NHS, Schools, Transports etc it would be overwhelming in favour of the latter.

You'd get the same result in a referendum to restore the death penalty alongside several other subjects that MP's won't allow us to vote on. I'm just grateful that Cameron tripped up on the EU vote.

 

[Albion my Albion]

It's the same argument in the USA, despite gun killings happening regularly civilians feel they are safer if they are allowed to have guns...

My American friends say that is not the majority. Unfortunately some politicians with lose their offices through the NRA before the majority will get their way because there is a tremendous amount of NRA money backing the political process and that money will eventually take down those responsible for defeating the NRA legislation. It will take politicians willing to give up their careers. Enough are not brave and sacrificial enough yet.

 

[Brovion]

The Cuban missile crisis showed that having nuclear warheads aimed a specific targets prevented an attack. Russia's bluff was called. Yes, I'm looking back, but if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Is the world any safer now? No, I would say it's less safe. Trident is one form of defence, and we have many other forms for different types of threats.

British weapons had nothing to do with the Cuban missile crisis did they though? America had (and still has) more than enough to deal with that crisis on it's own.

You're right about repeating past historical mistakes, but that's not quite the same thing as planning for the future. Hopefully if we ever find ourselves in another Iraq or Afghanistan (and you can bet the urge to intervene somewhere is a mistake we'll be keen to repeat at some stage) our troops will have the right equipment this time. That isn't going to be helped if we've blown billions of our defence budget on a weapons system that was designed to be used against the Warsaw Pact.

Anyway, it's a moot point now. The debate's over, the money will be spent, and even though there's no Warsaw Pact any more hopefully we'll find someone to threaten. At least jobs will be saved in Barrow so that's one bit of good news, I'll leave it there.

 

[looney]

Paying more than the nation can afford on a so-called 'independent' deterrent we have ask the USA's permission to use is a criminal waste of money.

This is not true.

This is one of the biggest myths peddled on the left and easily debunked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_nuclear_programme#Command_and_control