Do we need Trident or nuclear weapons?

[WesLangdon]

at the time we had the H bomb but that never stopped the Argies from invading.
so what was the use of it? we fought a conventional war on their terms for christs sake.

And, how can you use it against a terrorist cell, say in retaliation for a suitcase dirty bomb...would you bomb Mecca...no of course not they are useless as a deterrent against terrorism too.

 

[balge]

And of course, there is no possibility of 'unexpected outcomes' anywhere around the world in the next 30 years which could change our security situation in unforeseen ways?
Surely we have to be prepared for the 'next war' as well just reacting to current events?

 

[st4]

What an odd topic of conversation for a car forum

 

[Benzowner]

What an odd topic of conversation for a car forum

Odd bunch of people on here maybe?

 

[pipmk]

What an odd topic of conversation for a car forum

Nearly as bizarre as maintaining that a C class estate is the finest car in the world. There is no accounting for folk and their desire to say what they want.

 

[Deker]

at the time we had the H bomb but that never stopped the Argies from invading.
so what was the use of it? we fought a conventional war on their terms for christs sake.

Maybe it was kept conventional because we both had a nuclear deterrent which kept one of us from ending it quicker

And hasn't that worked well with the London bombings and the Twin Towers etc, they only need to get lucky once.

At best we are picking our way of destruction.

One small conventional explosive and some nuclear material from the ruins of the USSR and large parts of London become unusable.

Again without a deterrent it might have been a different story (or maybe not), London and New York could now be creators, but instead of a nuclear attack it was smaller focused attack (I know which I'd prefer)?

 

[st4]

Nearly as bizarre as maintaining that a C class estate is the finest car in the world. There is no accounting for folk and their desire to say what they want.

Enthusiasm over a Mercedes in a Mercedes owners forum? One of the great mysteries of the world

 

[markjay]

When looking at the financial side, we should also consider how the money will be spent.

Inevitably some of it will be paid to foreign contractors in the US and elsewhere in EU, but the majority of it will hopefully be paid to British companies and British workers.

In an economic reality where governments are putting money into the economy (remember Gordon Brown's election motto aimed at David Cameron's proposed budget cuts - 'he wants to take £6 billion out of the economy'?), a large-scale defense project is one very effective way of doing so.

It secures jobs for many years to come to several thousands of skilled workers and probably the same number again in subcontractors and service providers.



EDIT: This is aside of the core issue i.e the question of whether a country (any country) should have Nuclear weapons or not.

 

[Stratman]

If we're looking at jobs, I'd rather the £20 billion was spent on roads and railways. Think of the transport system we'd have and the number of jobs created.

 

[markjay]

If we're looking at jobs, I'd rather the £20 billion was spent on roads and railways. Think of the transport system we'd have and the number of jobs created.

So would I.

I agree that the prime consideration should be whether we need Trident or not, not just how much it costs.

My point was that - if the forum accepts that we need Trident, which is currently not the case - then the cost should not be considered as waist, because there is some merit to it i.e. creating long term skilled jobs.

Or, pur differently, to my mind the only question is whether we should have Nuclear weapons or not, while the cost is really neither here nor there. Well that's how I see it anyway...

 

[DITTRICH]

I think there are two issues which are, in my view, wrongly inter-linked.
The UK, due to it's colonial past, at the height of which it "owned" around 25% of the "world" (this % from memory and may not be accurate), seems to have perpetuated a view that it can, and has the right to tell other countries how to run their own lives, economies, human rights and so on. No-one likes being told what to do. This is the first issue.
The second issue is that nuclear weapons do prevent other states telling you what to do (unless you actually use them when the gloves come off). However, nukes don't protect against threats that are not from states. The terrorists (name any group you want) are not a state and can't be attacked with nukes without alot of collateral damage. This is the second issue.
On balance, the probability of the nuke club increasing would make it desireable to keep a deterrent, particularly as some of the candidates are a bit unpredictable. However, it has to be said that the UK's foreign policies and attitudes have not exactly helped matters. Some people don't like us and they have reasons for it. My take would be for the UK to become much less judgemental about other countries and certainly not in public or officially.

 

[balge]

So would I.
I agree that the prime consideration should be whether we need Trident or not, not just how much it costs.
My point was that - if the forum accepts that we need Trident, which is currently not the case - then the cost should not be considered as waist, because there is some merit to it i.e. creating long term skilled jobs.
Or, pur differently, to my mind the only question is whether we should have Nuclear weapons or not, while the cost is really neither here nor there. Well that's how I see it anyway...

Personally, I think we're in more need of power generation, storage and distribution rather than transport if we had £20b to spend at will...
As to Trident replacement I haven't heard any convincing reasons against yet?

 

[Dr-Nab]

Snickers, problem solved.

 

[LTD]

We have a worldwide military presence and some of the finest trained service personnel in it.

If we are to take part in missions in other parts of the world to help defend them as part of a worldwide unified force then one thing is simple.

We must have the top line form of defence that is available to us. Even if it sometimes means that defence is used as a threat to prevent the escalation of a situation.

Trident is a necessary evil to afford us the peace that we take for granted.

Two world wars saw countless thousands, nay millions, of people killed defending their countries.

Love it or loathe it, nuclear capability has probably prevented WW3 and the resultant massive loss of life that would follow. So far ...

 

[Dryce]

And, how can you use it against a terrorist cell, say in retaliation for a suitcase dirty bomb...would you bomb Mecca...no of course not they are useless as a deterrent against terrorism too.

This is a bit like expecting SOCA to deal with street muggings.

There are numerous threats. One solution does not deal with all of them.

I'll repeat slowly:



T h e r e

A r e

N o

M a g i c

B u l l e t s

 

[finisterre]

we don't need convincing reasons against. I have no convincing reason not to mortgage myself to the hilt and install a fifty metre pool in the garden. What I need is a convincing reason for one

The reasons for Trident don't really gell for me but I am happy to have a deterrent if that is what a good proportion of the populace think would be wise. It isn't very important either way. Obviously if it cost a lot I would give it more thought.

 

[markjay]

If the argument is that as part of NATO we should rely on other countries' Nuclear deterrents - the US in the West because of the 'Special Relationship', and France in the East because we are all part of the EU, I could accept that if it wasn't for the fact that the same people who argue this also criticize the UK for being a 'poodle' to the Americans, and advocate leaving the EU.

Well we can't have it both ways... if we don't feel too affiliated to the US and the EU then we should stick to our own deterrent.

 

[grober]

Snickers, problem solved.

AMAZING!! one snickers bar and you turn from an evil megalomaniac into a rapper. [YOUTUBE]mIQToVqDMb8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[finisterre]

Snickers, problem solved.

AMAZING!! one snickers bar and you turn from an evil megalomaniac into a rapper. [YOUTUBE]mIQToVqDMb8[/YOUTUBE]

I guess this is on Topic.

 

[WesLangdon]

I would prefer none at all but if we have to have it I'd prefer to be with an older more sophisticated culture like the French than the USA. What I find quite scary at the moment is the huffing and puffing towards Iran one of if not the oldest human societies from a jumped up 300 year old nation founded on slavery, tobacco and cotton.