Jump to content

We should get rid of Trident.


Park Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The reality is we will never use trident under any circumstances. The reason it's being renewed is so we can keep our seat around the table alongside the big world powers like we're still an important player on the world stage when in reality we're not. The British empire no longer spans a quarter of the globe. The yanks have our back. I repeat, there really are no circumstances where trident would ever be deployed. The leftie bullshit CT alludes to is supported by most defence industry analysts.

 

Much better to spend the defence budget on adapting to the new threat - fighting and helping train and support local forces struggling to deal with Islamist terrorist insurgents. Helping the Nigerians deal with Boko Haram would be a good start.

 

Meanwhile the billions saved by not reinvesting in an archaic nuclear deterrent, which was designed for the Cold War and is largely irrelevant in modern warfare, could more or less wipe out the budget deficit over night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile the billions saved by not reinvesting in an archaic nuclear deterrent, which was designed for the Cold War and is largely irrelevant in modern warfare, could more or less wipe out the budget deficit over night.

Are you sure about that? Source please.

 

It feels wrong but I'm with CT on this one, having formerly been a supporter of CND. There is no doubt in my mind that the deterrence of nuclear war prevented WW3 kicking off in Europe. The world is more uncertain now than it has been since the cold war ended. With the recent behaviour of Russia and the threat of Iran and North Korea, I think continued investment in nuclear deterrence is of paramount importance. Whether that be Trident or not, I don't know.

 

Yes, of course we hope they won't be used, that is their entire point. But the prospect of multilateral disarmament isn't going to happen, and I think the concept of unilateral disarmament died in the 1980s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's to act as a deterrent against someone, principally the Russians, overwhelming us with conventional forces. If they swept through western Europe I believe it is plausible nuclear weapons would be used pre-emptively. This is what gave the Warsaw pact pause for thought imo.

 

Even if you can't imagine a present day scenario where they would deter conflict though, how confident are you about predicting the future? Because once you scrap them there is no going back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's to act as a deterrent against someone, principally the Russians, overwhelming us with conventional forces. If they swept through western Europe I believe it is plausible nuclear weapons would be used pre-emptively. This is what gave the Warsaw pact pause for thought imo.

 

Even if you can't imagine a present day scenario where they would deter conflict though, how confident are you about predicting the future? Because once you scrap them there is no going back.

 

And you believe that USA and France would stand idly by while the Russians take over Europe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And you believe that USA and France would stand idly by while the Russians take over Europe?

And you believe France should have the only deterrence in western Europe and we should otherwise rely on a fading super power? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nuclear deterrent exists whether we have a fleet of nuclear armed subs or not though doesn't it. we don't need to be a nuclear player ourselves anymore for that to be the case - thanks to strong ties with the US.

 

according to this report, published by a commission set up by the British American Security Information Council, and led by Professor Keith Hartley, a leading defence economist, scrapping trident would save £83.5bn - or £1.86bn per year up until 2062.

 

the study also found that jobs at risk could be transferred to alternative defence projects.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/21/trident-nuclear-missiles-savings

 

ok, it wouldn't wipe out the deficit overnight, i was wrong there, but the savings suggested in that study are substantial. and we're talking about saving billions on something we don't need to invest in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you believe France should have the only deterrence in western Europe and we should otherwise rely on a fading super power? Really?

 

It only takes one nuke.

 

I think the days of the Russians hoping to conquer the whole of Europe are over. We're living in different times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having notional control of a few subs and being a aircraft carrier for the US are no different IMO - any "deterrence" comes from being friends with America.

 

As for immediacy in response to changing threats, again the yanks could supply anything needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK is the 5th richest country in the world by GDP and are a historic nuclear power. US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and soon Iran all have nuclear capability. I appreciate your arguments against us retaining our deterrence but don't assume it is faulty thinking to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think its a waste of money. Then again having disagreed with every deployment of UK armed forces since WWII, I think the armed forces in general are a vast waste of money and goes back to the original notion of cock waving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're the 5th richest country by GDP yet have millions using food banks. I have no moral obligation to having nuclear weapons but when the government is constantly telling us that cuts need to be made then they should start with luxury items like Trident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It only takes one nuke.

 

I think the days of the Russians hoping to conquer the whole of Europe are over. We're living in different times.

Of course we are. But how old were you in 1988? Did you foresee the events of the following year? The world is entirely unpredictable, better to have all bases covered imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're the 5th richest country by GDP yet have millions using food banks. I have no moral obligation to having nuclear weapons but when the government is constantly telling us that cuts need to be made then they should start with luxury items like Trident.

Food banks are a disgrace, but the uneven distribution of wealth in the UK has Fuck all to do with Trident, which will come out the defence budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think less expensive alternatives should be looked at, although on the face of it a submarine deterrent seems the most failsafe.

 

This is the issue which will screw the Labour SNP relationship most I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're the 5th richest country by GDP yet have millions using food banks. I have no moral obligation to having nuclear weapons but when the government is constantly telling us that cuts need to be made then they should start with luxury items like Trident.

 

exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all gonna become immaterial in 20 years time when global warming surpasses 2 degrees and the shit starts to really hit the fan with the effects of climate change. We should be redirecting the trident money at renewable energy along with the rest of the planet instead of sleepwalking to a toasty oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.