Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2011-12/07/122390760_601n.jpg


Do you think we should scrap all nuclear weapons and spend the money on caring for the sick and elderly?

-----------------------------------------------

£3 billion of our taxes are spent on Trident each year.

► By comparison, building a state-of-the-art hospital costs around £545 million.
► Providing free school dinners for children from families in receipt of Universal Credit would cost around £500 million per year.
► Or pay for 150,000 new nurses and teachers every year for over 30 years, or quadruple Britain’s annual investment in renewable energy, or create 180,000 new jobs in housing construction.

http://www.rethinktrident.org.uk/the-cost-of-trident-replacement/

------------------------------------------------------
What is Trident?

A sea-based nuclear weapons system. It was acquired by the Thatcher government in the early 1980s as a replacement for the Polaris missile system which the UK had possessed since the 1960s. Trident then came into use in the 1990s.

There are three parts to Trident - submarines, missiles and warheads. Although each component has years of use left, they cannot last indefinitely. The current generation of four submarines would begin to end their working lives some time in the late 2020s.

Work on a replacement cannot be delayed because the submarines alone could take up to 17 years to develop.

Only one submarine is on patrol at any one time and it needs several days' notice to fire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

[Livia]

As I said before... we should scrap ours the day after North Korea and everyone else scraps theirs.

[kirklancaster]

As I said before... we should scrap ours the day after North Korea and everyone else scraps theirs.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

No good unilaterally disarming our nuclear deterrent and building new hospitals with the money saved, when the probable outcome of that unilateral disarmament is that our entire country will disappear in a nuclear storm -courtesy of one of the insane regimes you mention Liv.

Trident has not kept the peace but it has stopped nutjack regimes from blowing us to pieces.

[joeysteele]

No, I don't but I have reservertions as to whether we still need all as to what we have now.

[Toy Soldier]

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

No good unilaterally disarming our nuclear deterrent and building new hospitals with the money saved, when the probable outcome of that unilateral disarmament is that our entire country will disappear in a nuclear storm -courtesy of one of the insane regimes you mention Liv.

Trident has not kept the peace but it has stopped nutjack regimes from blowing us to pieces.
Yeah! I mean we all remember that fateful day that all of the Western nations that don't hold nuclear weapons were eradicated in nuclear hell fire, and we certainly wouldn't want that to happen here!

[Crimson Dynamo]

I heard today that there would be around 600 job losses in Scotland and the vast majority would be those of folks who dont live here. This 6000 jobs is a bit of a myth

[Toy Soldier]

Here's the sitch: there are only two vaguely realistic situations in which the UK will be hit by a nuclear attack.

1) An attack by an extremist organisation like ISIS that has somehow got their hands on a small nuke.

2) The superpowers kick off.


These are the ONLY realistic scenarios and in BOTH scenarios a nuclear deterrent is about as useful as an army of cats armed with potato guns.

In scenario one, the attackers are a decentralised organisation operating from cells. Even in the countries where they have greater numbers, there is simply no target to nuke. They are not a nation, they are a swarm, they don't care if you fire nukes back. It's like trying to take out a swarm of bees with an assault rifle.

Scenario two, we are all completely and utterly ****ed and there is nothing left to defend. In fact holding nukes only make us more likely to be a target when the first bombs drop. Which might actually be better than the radiation sickness and aggressive cancers that will get you otherwise, I guess.

[Ninastar]

As I said before... we should scrap ours the day after North Korea and everyone else scraps theirs.

pretty much this...

[Livia]

Here's the sitch: there are only two vaguely realistic situations in which the UK will be hit by a nuclear attack.

1) An attack by an extremist organisation like ISIS that has somehow got their hands on a small nuke.

2) The superpowers kick off.


These are the ONLY realistic scenarios and in BOTH scenarios a nuclear deterrent is about as useful as an army of cats armed with potato guns.

In scenario one, the attackers are a decentralised organisation operating from cells. Even in the countries where they have greater numbers, there is simply no target to nuke. They are not a nation, they are a swarm, they don't care if you fire nukes back. It's like trying to take out a swarm of bees with an assault rifle.

Scenario two, we are all completely and utterly ****ed and there is nothing left to defend. In fact holding nukes only make us more likely to be a target when the first bombs drop. Which might actually be better than the radiation sickness and aggressive cancers that will get you otherwise, I guess.

Glad you're so sure.

[MTVN]

I'm not sure we can confidently predict the state of global relations in five years time never mind fifty, one hundred, or even longer ahead. It's impossible to say how the balance of power could shift in the future, who will become prominent on the world stage and who might fade away, who will be a threat and who will be an ally etc. Plus the superpowers could also be in conflict with each other without resorting to nuclear weapons, because of the whole mutually assured destruction thing, but if the balance of nukes is uneven in that regard then that incentive to not use them disappears. And even aside from that technology could also change massively, we don't know that nuclear weaponry could become more sophisticated so that it could be incorporated into warfare without necessary obliterating the whole planet.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I wonder how all the other countries that dont have weapons survive?

[kirklancaster]

Yeah! I mean we all remember that fateful day that all of the Western nations that don't hold nuclear weapons were eradicated in nuclear hell fire, and we certainly wouldn't want that to happen here!

:joker::joker::joker: What a simplistic view???? And how long do you think it would be in today's increasingly volatile unstable world before your sarcastic statement actually became true if NO Western Nations had nuclear weapons?

It is the fact that SOME Western Nations HAVE had nuclear weapons and therefore the ability to RETALIATE that HAS prevented just such a scenario as you sarcastically depict from happening.

Insane despots and Terrorists are all BULLIES and bullies ATTACK others without real reason or justification just because it is in their nature to do so - whether that be on school playgrounds, within the marital home, or on the streets.

It is noticeable though, that VICTIMS of BULLYING are always WEAKER, MORE DEFENCELESS or MORE VULNERABLE than their ATTACKERS - whether that be small children faced by a larger child or a greater number of tormentors, frail old pensioners being 'mugged', tiny children molested by adult perverts, or battered wives at the mercy of huge, powerful partners behind closed doors.

Notice that no BULLY ever tries to pick on someone stronger or more powerful than them? I never see a skinny, drug addled robber ever trying to 'mug' a 17 stone young guy returning from a workout at his gym and carrying his training bag, or some sicko paedophile ever approaching a child while her mum and dad's with her, or any abusive spouse attacking timid partners while three or four of her brothers are present.

It's HUMAN NATURE that decrees the above, and it's HUMANS who control TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS and DESPOT CRACKPOT REGIMES, so they will NEVER attack any WESTERN Nation with NUCLEAR WEAPONS while ever SOME WESTERN NATIONS have the CAPACITY to retaliate in kind, because bullies aren't built that way.

[Kizzy]

I think we're more used to being the despot...

[JoshBB]

Yes we should scrap trident.

For 100bn we could spend it on much better things such as scrapping tuition fees, having a fully-funded NHS, renationalising the railways and energy.. honestly this relic of the cold war is completely pointless as we're never going to use it. Chemical nuclear weapons are NOT defense.

[Livia]

Yes we should scrap trident.

For 100bn we could spend it on much better things such as scrapping tuition fees, having a fully-funded NHS, renationalising the railways and energy.. honestly this relic of the cold war is completely pointless as we're never going to use it. Chemical nuclear weapons are NOT defense.

Defence, you mean.

I agree. We could spend the money on something better. Sadly, as every dictator and madman in the world either has nuclear weapons or is striving for nuclear weapons, it would be foolhardly for us, a country which has already sustained terrorist attacks from all kinds of fanatical groups, to leave ourselves completely unarmed.

[Ninastar]

Defence, you mean.

I agree. We could spend the money on something better. Sadly, as every dictator and madman in the world either has nuclear weapons or is striving for nuclear weapons, it would be foolhardly for us, a country which has already sustained terrorist attacks from all kinds of fanatical groups, to leave ourselves completely unarmed.

Once again, very well said. It's not a good thing that we need these types of weapons... but at the end of the day, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Getting rid of these weapons would just make us an even bigger target.

[kirklancaster]

I think we're more used to being the despot...

Instead of glib little snatches of 'sound bites' and 'links', why don't YOU expound Kizzy, because; "I think we're more used to being the despot..." does not mean zilch to me in the context of what I have written or indeed, the context of this thread.

[kirklancaster]

Yes we should scrap trident.

For 100bn we could spend it on much better things such as scrapping tuition fees, having a fully-funded NHS, renationalising the railways and energy.. honestly this relic of the cold war is completely pointless as we're never going to use it. Chemical nuclear weapons are NOT defense.

I wish that I had access to the very same 'Crystal Ball' which you lefties appear to have access to when you make such clinical definite statements as you all do.

[Helen 28]

Ukraine got rid of it'd nuclear weapons in 1994, would Russia have invaded had they still had them, I think we know the answer to that one.

[Nedusa]

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

No good unilaterally disarming our nuclear deterrent and building new hospitals with the money saved, when the probable outcome of that unilateral disarmament is that our entire country will disappear in a nuclear storm -courtesy of one of the insane regimes you mention Liv.

Trident has not kept the peace but it has stopped nutjack regimes from blowing us to pieces.

I think these regimes will use their Nuclear weapons on us regardless of our "Nuclear Deterrent". They will probably see it as their duty or they have probably been told by Allah that is is acceptable regardless of their own demise.

So under those circumstances all bets are off as the MAD doctrine doesn't work.

No.........I think the only defence would be a unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strike on all these mad regimes before they acquire these weapons.

[Nedusa]

And as a consequence of that, most of the middle East would become a Radioactive fallout zone so all the oil and Gas there would stay there and the price of oil and Gas would rocket.

Our North Sea Industry would flourish overnight and we could develop the Falklands for Oil as well.

So it's practically a win-win........

[arista]

I'm not sure we can confidently predict the state of global relations in five years time never mind fifty, one hundred, or even longer ahead. It's impossible to say how the balance of power could shift in the future, who will become prominent on the world stage and who might fade away, who will be a threat and who will be an ally etc. Plus the superpowers could also be in conflict with each other without resorting to nuclear weapons, because of the whole mutually assured destruction thing, but if the balance of nukes is uneven in that regard then that incentive to not use them disappears. And even aside from that technology could also change massively, we don't know that nuclear weaponry could become more sophisticated so that it could be incorporated into warfare without necessary obliterating the whole planet.


Are You aware that the UK can not Fire them
unless USA Airspace lets them?

[arista]

Yes we should scrap trident.

For 100bn we could spend it on much better things such as scrapping tuition fees, having a fully-funded NHS, renationalising the railways and energy.. honestly this relic of the cold war is completely pointless as we're never going to use it. Chemical nuclear weapons are NOT defense.


No that costs to much
Nuke gear - not liked

[arista]

On the Daily Politics
Over Debated all this on their over long 60mins show

and the SNP bloke said that they will still be under Nato
so they will still be under USA Nato Nuke Protection.


OK LT

[joeysteele]

It isn't even really an independent deterrent as the govt; says it is, since we probably couldn't be justified in using it without the USA's approval to do so anyway.

I don't see why it needs to cost so much and therefore we could reduce the replacements.

Also, since the Scots don't want it, then it could be moved South to Portsmouth or an area like that,or would they not want it there either.

[Toy Soldier]

Glad you're so sure.

Offer an alternative scenario for the UK to be under Nuclear attack? Or explain what use nuclear weapons would be in retaliation against a nuclear strike perpetrated by terrorists?

[smudgie]

I reckon we need to keep them.

Ok, so I might be a teensy bit biased as my nephew is a submariner on one of the subs.
If I am not mistaken, we do not need any veto at all from the USA to fire a missile, the final word is up to the PM of the day.

[Northern Monkey]

No!As long as nuclear weapons exist,We need them.

[bots]

I would be happy for the UK to ditch nuclear weapons as soon as we have come up with a better more effective method of protection/attack. Until that day, nukes are here to stay.

[joeysteele]

I reckon we need to keep them.

Ok, so I might be a teensy bit biased as my nephew is a submariner on one of the subs.
If I am not mistaken, we do not need any veto at all from the USA to fire a missile, the final word is up to the PM of the day.

I think you will find we would need the USA's approval to do so,there was a cross party committee last year who looked at all aspects of trident and the UKs nuclear deterrent.
One of the things it came across and concluded was that it would be stretching credibility too far to assume a British PM could independently release nuclear missiles and that in fact a desire to do so could be obstructed or vetoed by the USA.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what possible use nuclear weapons would be against a terrorist organisation, or a military superpower that has pushed the game over button.

Or suggest another nuclear threat that we face. And if someone says "North Korea" I might actually lose my ****.

[joeysteele]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what possible use nuclear weapons would be against a terrorist organisation, or a military superpower that has pushed the game over button.

Or suggest another nuclear threat that we face. And if someone says "North Korea" I might actually lose my ****.

I doubt there is an answer that could be reasonably given to your scenario TS.

I agree with all your post above.

[bots]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what possible use nuclear weapons would be against a terrorist organisation, or a military superpower that has pushed the game over button.

Or suggest another nuclear threat that we face. And if someone says "North Korea" I might actually lose my ****.

Well of course, its possible to pick any number of scenarios where a nuke is not effective or appropriate. They have a specific purpose and function. A nuke is not and never will be the answer to each and every conceivable scenario, and nobody should expect it to be so. It is but 1 part of an integrated package

[Toy Soldier]

Well of course, its possible to pick any number of scenarios where a nuke is not effective or appropriate. They have a specific purpose and function. A nuke is not and never will be the answer to each and every conceivable scenario, and nobody should expect it to be so. It is but 1 part of an integrated package

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

[joeysteele]

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

You have really made me think Toy Soldier, I was in favour of having the nuclear deterrent, however the more you post,the more I move to the point you are at and the question you are asking is extremely valid..

I cannot answer your question with anything really logical,and it does I agree sound weak that just because this one or that one has them,then so should we.

You've made me think and it seems you are not likely going to get a convincing response to your question and thoughts on this issue.

[bots]

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

When countries decide to pick on others, they do so by judging their chances of success. Do they have the advantage. As the UK is a small country, having a nuclear capability allows us to stand up and defend ourselves against much bigger opponents than we would ever be able to do with just conventional weapons, should the need arise.

This sort of stuff is pretty obvious really. Making up scenario's showing where something is not appropriate is nonsensical in this context.

[Toy Soldier]

When countries decide to pick on others, they do so by judging their chances of success. Do they have the advantage. As the UK is a small country, having a nuclear capability allows us to stand up and defend ourselves against much bigger opponents than we would ever be able to do with just conventional weapons, should the need arise.

This sort of stuff is pretty obvious really. Making up scenario's showing where something is not appropriate is nonsensical in this context.
Which bigger opponents? Again, realistically.

[bots]

Which bigger opponents? Again, realistically.

How many countries or countries grouped together are bigger than the UK? Take your pick.

blah blah blah will never happen, is always the biggest mistake. Just because we have had no threat of these type during the time we have been in possession of nuclear weapons, doesn't mean things will remain the same if we decided to ditch them.

In all honesty, this is a pretty juvenile discussion, so I'm out now.

[arista]

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.


Yes its a USA contract
they demand the money

[arista]

Offer an alternative scenario for the UK to be under Nuclear attack? Or explain what use nuclear weapons would be in retaliation against a nuclear strike perpetrated by terrorists?


White Van parked in London W1
Paying the parking charge . all Legal.


the Nuke set to go off

The Terrorist says his prayers
then Bang
he vanishes and leaves no trace
London is gone in a Mega Nuke.


The only record is in space
on a Sat. recording
So after some weeks they could track the Van before it arrived.

[Toy Soldier]

White Van parked in London W1
Paying the parking charge . all Legal.


the Nuke set to go off

The Terrorist says his prayers
then Bang
he vanishes and leaves no trace
London is gone in a Mega Nuke.


The only record is in space
on a Sat. recording
So after some weeks they could track the Van before it arrived.
This is indeed a viable scenario for a nuclear attack, albeit an unlikely one, as the likelihood of a terrorist organisation obtaining enough weapons grade nuclear material to build a bomb - let alone a viable bomb with a high yield - is exceptionally low.

However, yes, possible. I guess they could steal one.

Regardless... Let's say your scenario comes to pass Arista.

A) do you think the terrorists would be deterred from carrying out this attack for even one second by the fact that we have nuclear weapons?

B) At what, exactly, would we fire our own nukes in retaliation? Which country? Which city?

[arista]

"do you think the terrorists would be deterred from carrying out this attack for even one second by the fact that we have nuclear weapons?"

Its does not matter
as there are not Firing a Nuke
they are in White Van.

and
We can not Fire back
as we do not know who was in the Van
until Digital images emerge in America
as they get Images who was in the van before
it parked. but that takes a few weeks.

[Toy Soldier]

How many countries or countries grouped together are bigger than the UK? Take your pick.

blah blah blah will never happen, is always the biggest mistake. Just because we have had no threat of these type during the time we have been in possession of nuclear weapons, doesn't mean things will remain the same if we decided to ditch them.

In all honesty, this is a pretty juvenile discussion, so I'm out now.

In what way is it juvenile?

I think you must mean "frustrating", I'm asking a very simple question regarding a very important political issue and, thus far, the answers have been vague at best.

[Toy Soldier]

"do you think the terrorists would be deterred from carrying out this attack for even one second by the fact that we have nuclear weapons?"

Its does not matter
as there are not Firing a Nuke
they are in White Van.

and
We can not Fire back
as we do not know who was in the Van
until Digital images emerge in America
as they get Images who was in the van before
it parked. but that takes a few weeks.
Correct on both counts arista. Which is why in your scenario our nukes are 100% useless as both a deterrent and as a retaliatory strike.

The billions spent on the program would have been better spent on military intelligence (and... Space data Satellites I guess?) that might have stopped the attack from ever being planned.

[arista]

Correct on both counts arista. Which is why in your scenario our nukes are 100% useless as both a deterrent and as a retaliatory strike.

The billions spent on the program would have been better spent on military intelligence (and... Space data Satellites I guess?) that might have stopped the attack from ever being planned.


Yes going to USA
its Fecking Wrong

[Northern Monkey]

Hopefully we would never have to use Trident.The most likely scenario in which we would have to use it would thermo nuclear war.We definately don't want that.

Britain used to be a great and powerful nation.We had the best navy in the world,Which being an island we should!
That should be our strongest asset.But unfortunately it has been depleated to the point where it is a joke for an island nation.
Our armed forces are now small and we would struggle in a solo campaign against one country never mind fighting on multiple stages.
This once great nation is a shell of its former glory.
The unfortunate truth is that the most powerful nations in the world have the most influence and respect wether we like it or not and when it all boils down to it power equates to strength and military capability.
Just about the only ounce of respect this country has left is our nuclear capability.Us and France are the most powerful nations in Europe militarily because of our nuclear capabilities.
We are one of the reasons Russia would think twice about invading EU or Nato countries.
Other countries look to us as a nuclear power to help keep them secure.
Trident is our biggest bargaining chip on the world stage and if we got rid of it,We would have nothing.No power and no influence.
No other western country would want us to scrap our nuclear weapons systems.

It is better to have it and never use it than to not have it lose our status as a nuclear state.
We would be foolish to get rid and we would threaten the security of not just ourselves but the whole of Europe.

[Toy Soldier]

I was with you for the first half of that Paul... The reason "we" want them and have them is because Britain was once an empire and - in so SO many pointless, pathetic ways - we want to pretend that we are still "big boys" on the world stage. So we happily see billions of pounds poured into a radioactive dick-waving contest whilst children are dying of cancer through lack of NHS funding, and the disabled literally starve to death.

The only scenario for the use of Trident is global thermonuclear war. In that scenario, the world is finished. Full stop. We don't "need" them for that because in that scenario we won't "need" anything at all, we will be dead or slowly and painfully dying.

The other function of holding nuclear weapons is as a deterrent - "mutually assured destruction" - and the reasoning for that only applies to the nuclear heavy hitters. Mainly The US and Russia, also China. Global superpowers. I would not recommend for a second that any of these nations become nuke-free. We are NOT a global superpower.

Now, if someone were to suggest that a united European force should hold a number of nuclear weapons, with the cost spread across all member states, I wouldn't necessarily disagree... But a "euroforce" (judging by the other thread) doesn't appear to be a very popular suggestion.

[MTVN]

We're one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, probably the most important global body for international relations and maintaining peace, I think it's fair to say we are still a super power. Our role in that becomes completely pointless the day its not underpinned by nuclear weapons.

[Northern Monkey]

We have already emasculated our country enough,Let us not finish the job by cutting its balls off too.
Let us not turn it into the giant pussy of Europe laying waiting for any other nation who chooses...to **** us.Imo:laugh:

[Toy Soldier]

So the main answer thus far is "we need them so that other countries will think that we are big and important, because being big and important is big and important".

Im hardly surprised, but find myself crushingly disappointed all over again that Scotland didn't break away from this ridiculous littleman syndrome.

[Northern Monkey]

So the main answer thus far is "we need them so that other countries will think that we are big and important, because being big and important is big and important".

Im hardly surprised, but find myself crushingly disappointed all over again that Scotland didn't break away from this ridiculous littleman syndrome.

But we are little.We need a big dong dangling between our legs.Not a......pussy

[Toy Soldier]

But we are little.We need a big dong dangling between our legs.Not a......
No, we need to accept that we aren't a global superpower any more, aren't going to be one again, and start looking inwards at (and spending money on) our own broken mess of a country instead of pissing around on a world stage that we don't really belong on like a yappy puppy.

[Northern Monkey]

But would you really want the French to have a bigger penis than us?Could you live in that world?I'm not sure i could.

[Toy Soldier]

The only types of war that we will ever engage in, ever again, are ones that are scrappy and complex like the war against ISIS, or a potential final blowout between big nations. That's it. If it's the latter, it won't matter what we do or don't have. If it's the former, nuclear weapons will be completely useless. It's a type of war that has to be fought intelligently and with precision. Scalpels, not hammers.

There seems to be some argument of "but what if in future...". Well, in future nothing. Either it kicks off on a nuclear scale and we all die, or it doesn't kick off at all and we don't need them. The deciding factor in this is M.A.D. Tens of thousands of warheads. We are not part of that, our nuclear capability is completely irrelevant in that context.

[MTVN]

Instead of thinking we're bigger than we are I actually think people spend too long wallowing about how supposedly unimportant we now are. The UK is at the forefront of pretty much every major global organisation there is; the UN, G8, NATO etc. We are still a global superpower I'm afraid even if that now manifests in a different form to the more obvious strength of an empire or a large navy. We probably could still remain one without Trident in a lot of ways though not really in terms of international security. Our role as a permanent member of the UN security council becomes largely pointless and we leave the nuclear security of western Europe in the sole hands of France.

The fact remains that we do not how global relations could change in the future. It's basically constantly changing. I mean, ISIS barely existed a couple of years ago, now they're often considered the main global threat. We thought the days of overt conflict with Russia were largely over but we seem to increasingly be creeping back to them. Iran were considered the main threat not too long ago and now we are on the verge of a major breakthrough in relations with them, probably Obama's greatest achievement. Iraq was thought to be becoming increasingly stable not too long ago and is now engulfed in conflict. We could go back further - it was thought during WWI that it would be "the war to end all wars" yet twenty years later the world collapsed into a conflict even longer and deadlier. It's also the case with technology. Did people envisage, say, drone warfare becoming so prominent say 50 years ago? Was anything like the nuclear weapon envisaged twenty years before its invention? Yet apparently we can now say with complete certainty the exact possibilities wherein the UK could be involved in a war and the way in which technology could be utilised? For all we know there could come a point where nuclear technology gets implemented into warfare without it necessarily destroying the whole world. This time in a hundred years the global and technological landscape will be completely different to how it is now.

[MTVN]

Plus lets not forget that for a large part of the 20th century war between nuclear powers seemed a very real possibility and we probably came incredibly close to it on several occasions

[arista]

We're one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, probably the most important global body for international relations and maintaining peace, I think it's fair to say we are still a super power. Our role in that becomes completely pointless the day its not underpinned by nuclear weapons.


There is a Debate to be had on this.

France could have them on our behalf
for example


Your talking like its set in stone - MTVN get off your horse

Lets see who is in Power

Then in Parliament
after the Election it is debated

[Livia]

Excellent points MTVN, as usual.

[arista]

Excellent points MTVN, as usual.


No he is Wrong
he does not know the Full facts

[Livia]

No he is Wrong
he does not know the Full facts

With respect, arista, his points are extremely well-informed in my opinion.

[MTVN]

Thank you Livia, enough of your ranting Arista

[AnnieK]

I was wavering on this to be honest but Matts posts have reinforced my original views in that we need nuclear weapons.

[arista]

Thank you Livia, enough of your ranting Arista


Is my Info wrong?


I hate Ranters

[arista]

With respect, arista, his points are extremely well-informed in my opinion.


Yes but Not Up To Date

[Toy Soldier]

I'm not saying that the landscape couldn't change to the point where nuclear war becomes reality. I'm saying that if it does, whether or not we're the ones firing them will not matter. Not even slightly.

They have no use as weapons, their only use is as a threat / deterrent. Their only use as a deterrent is against the nuclear superpowers as part of M.A.D. Trident is not needed as part of M.A.D.

The only scenario under which we would need our own nuclear deterrent is if the three major players involved in m.a.d were to be on the same side, and against us. So that's the US, Russia and China teaming up as a nuclear threat against Europe or the UK and US then using four submarines to deter them.

It's a scenario so ludicrous that you might as well say we should keep nukes incase an invading force of insectoid aliens attacks, and we'll need to turn the trident subs into makeshift spacecraft and launch them into space to destroy the insect moon-base.

If either of those things happen (superpower dreamteam or insect invaders) we are automatically and completely screwed to the point that fighting back would actually be laughable.

I'll say again: it's dick swinging.

There's a reason that the English - both people and politicians - are desperate to cling to trident and a place as "big boys" on the world stage in ways that the other countries in the UK are not. That reason is that England - unlike the other countries - have very little national identity that isn't linked to empire and power.

[Kizzy]

If France has one and it's only 25 miles away across the channel can't we just share?

[Toy Soldier]

If France has one and it's only 25 miles away across the channel can't we just share?
I personally think it would be a good idea to have the cost spread across the whole of Europe if we must have them, but everyone on tibby is euroskeptic so I can't see many agreeing! After all, it would make mighty England less muscly manly super Awesomes boom boom big bombs poweeerrrr. And in 50 years someone might want to attack us. Maybe Norwegians? In nuclear longboats.

[MTVN]

Is my Info wrong?


I hate Ranters

What is your info?

I'm not saying that the landscape couldn't change to the point where nuclear war becomes reality. I'm saying that if it does, whether or not we're the ones firing them will not matter. Not even slightly.

They have no use as weapons, their only use is as a threat / deterrent. Their only use as a deterrent is against the nuclear superpowers as part of M.A.D. Trident is not needed as part of M.A.D.

The only scenario under which we would need our own nuclear deterrent is if the three major players involved in m.a.d were to be on the same side, and against us. So that's the US, Russia and China teaming up as a nuclear threat against Europe or the UK and US then using four submarines to deter them.

It's a scenario so ludicrous that you might as well say we should keep nukes incase an invading force of insectoid aliens attacks, and we'll need to turn the trident subs into makeshift spacecraft and launch them into space to destroy the insect moon-base.

If either of those things happen (superpower dreamteam or insect invaders) we are automatically and completely screwed to the point that fighting back would actually be laughable.

I'll say again: it's dick swinging.

There's a reason that the English - both people and politicians - are desperate to cling to trident and a place as "big boys" on the world stage in ways that the other countries in the UK are not. That reason is that England - unlike the other countries - have very little national identity that isn't linked to empire and power.

I don't think that's necessarily true, right now I suppose we're something of a second line of European defence because in the last few hundred years Europe has probably been more ravaged by internal conflict than any other continent. The others have all seen their fair share of conflict but not on the same scale. We all talk about the two "world wars" but in reality they were primarily European wars weren't they, conflict between European powers that ultimately took place on a global scale. And actually its entirely possible that the super powers could go to war without using their nuclear weapons, it doesn't have to mean global apocalypse. There have always been 'rules' to war, things that just aren't acceptable to do - nuclear weapons could easily be one of them. You might say that that will be broken as soon as one side starts losing they'll get their nuke out but that's no more true than breaking any other 'rule' of warfare. And again, the threat of MAD would be another great barrier against that.

And as for the superpowers anyway, who's to say who they will be in the future? If you were to say a hundred years ago that China would be a world superpower no one would believe you. The USA has been a superpower for what, about a century? Countries are developing all the time, the global situation is so fluid that there is absolutely no guarantee that the countries who dominate international relations right now will be those who do in years to come. In a sense nuclear weapons are a big part of what preserves stability in global affairs. The UK, the US, China, Russia and France: their position becomes a lot less secure if suddenly they don't have nuclear weaponry underpinning their status. The UN has played a big part in stabilising international relations and the balance of power in the post-war decades. Nuclear weapons do also do that because like it or not we're stuck with them. A nuclear free world is a pipe dream.

Anyway I get the sense really that the debate here isn't as much about nuclear weapons as about Britain's place in the world. You think that we are essentially irrelevant in international relations these days, or at least irrelevant enough not to bother with nuclear weapons. I disagree, and for the record I don't disagree because hang ups over penis size or the lack of identity I have as an Englishman. I don't mourn the end of the Empire, and I certainly don't think we should be merely 'dick swinging' on an international stage. We do have a role to play though, and when it comes to international security we need nuclear weapons to underpin that role.

[Toy Soldier]

I don't think Britain is irrelevant but then, neither are countless other countries who do not have nuclear weapons. For example, do you think France is more relevant to international relations than, say, Germany, Australia or Japan?

[Northern Monkey]

God dam French and their huge penises,Making us have nukes.If we scrapped them they'd all stand on the cliffs of Calais doing helicopters with their schlongs.

[MTVN]

I don't think Britain is irrelevant but then, neither are countless other countries who do not have nuclear weapons. For example, do you think France is more relevant to international relations than, say, Germany, Australia or Japan?

Not necessarily, I would certainly consider Germany a superpower but rightly or wrongly they are still paying the price for WWII and to their credit they agreed not to have their own nukes. It's true that it might be hard for us to lecture other countries; we're certainly not some beacon of responsibility in international affairs given our recent actions. It's why I can actually understand why Iran wants them as well, even North Korea to some extent has guaranteed their safety from any external attempt at regime change by having nukes. I do think though that our history of the last few decades has given us a great appreciation of nuclear weaponry and its dangers. Even disregarding that it is clear that overall the tide is to more nuclear countries, not less. It might be quite a conservative attitude but imo in something like international security it is best to maintain the status quo, to maintain stability. There does seem to be a general recognition of that, hence the 5 permanent members of the security council and hence a lot of countries agreeing not to have nuclear weapons and being happy for the UK and others to have them. It's not just about a little Englander hankering for Empire or wanting to rule the world, if anything I think it's the opposite of that. I'd like to think nuclear weapons also keep us grounded as a reminder of the dangers in engaging in all out conflict. Just as I support us having an active role in Europe in the EU so I support us having an active role in international security and I do think that nuclear weapons are important to that.

[Toy Soldier]

You present an interesting argument MTVN. I don't know if I'm entirely on board with this as an ideology but at the very least you've given me something to ponder. Which I am genuinely thankful for.

[lostalex]

I think all nations should abandon nuclear weapons, as long as the USA is the last to disarm. Once every other nation is absolutely proven to have disarmed, then i would support the USA disarming as well.

[waterhog]

if we can not defend ourselves you might as way good bye to our way of life.

[lostalex]

if we can not defend ourselves you might as way good bye to our way of life.

it's similar to the gun rights debate though. does having a big gun really make you more safe? do you own any guns waterhog?

[joeysteele]

Instead of thinking we're bigger than we are I actually think people spend too long wallowing about how supposedly unimportant we now are. The UK is at the forefront of pretty much every major global organisation there is; the UN, G8, NATO etc. We are still a global superpower I'm afraid even if that now manifests in a different form to the more obvious strength of an empire or a large navy. We probably could still remain one without Trident in a lot of ways though not really in terms of international security. Our role as a permanent member of the UN security council becomes largely pointless and we leave the nuclear security of western Europe in the sole hands of France.

The fact remains that we do not how global relations could change in the future. It's basically constantly changing. I mean, ISIS barely existed a couple of years ago, now they're often considered the main global threat. We thought the days of overt conflict with Russia were largely over but we seem to increasingly be creeping back to them. Iran were considered the main threat not too long ago and now we are on the verge of a major breakthrough in relations with them, probably Obama's greatest achievement. Iraq was thought to be becoming increasingly stable not too long ago and is now engulfed in conflict. We could go back further - it was thought during WWI that it would be "the war to end all wars" yet twenty years later the world collapsed into a conflict even longer and deadlier. It's also the case with technology. Did people envisage, say, drone warfare becoming so prominent say 50 years ago? Was anything like the nuclear weapon envisaged twenty years before its invention? Yet apparently we can now say with complete certainty the exact possibilities wherein the UK could be involved in a war and the way in which technology could be utilised? For all we know there could come a point where nuclear technology gets implemented into warfare without it necessarily destroying the whole world. This time in a hundred years the global and technological landscape will be completely different to how it is now.

This is a fantastic post and although I still could be persuaded that we don't necessarily need as much of the nuclear deterrent we currently have.
I really find no way at all to dispute or disagree with all you say in the above post.
The latter point very insightful and making immense sense too.

[Toy Soldier]

it's similar to the gun rights debate though. does having a big gun really make you more safe? do you own any guns waterhog?
I can see the logic in that, it's a proven statistic that carrying a gun makes you much more likely to be shot.

If the worst were to happen, and if someone were to push that button, our possession of nukes would simply make us one of the very first targets. Again, though, not that it really matters who is the first target, if it happens we're all dead anyway.

[lostalex]

I can see the logic in that, it's a proven statistic that carrying a gun makes you much more likely to be shot.

If the worst were to happen, and if someone were to push that button, our possession of nukes would simply make us one of the very first targets. Again, though, not that it really matters who is the first target, if it happens we're all dead anyway.

well not all of us. i'm sure all the countries that have nukes, the first thing they did after developing a nuclear weapon was build nuclear shelters underground for all of their elites.

the President of the USA, or the Ayatollah of Iran doesn't have to worry, they have plans in place lol