[LeatherTrumpet]

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...t-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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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!

[LeatherTrumpet]

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

pretty much this...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.