Topic: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?

[ds2190]

The nuclear defence system of the United Kingdom uses Trident missiles loaded with nuclear warheads 4 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Recently, the Government has committed to the renewal of the Trident nuclear defence system. This renewal would cost anything from £30bn to over £70bn.

Trident has never been used and is not likely to ever have a use. There are fears that renewing Trident would cause other countries to enter a period of nuclear development. This would eventually lead to an arms race between several nations.

For more information on Trident here are some resources:

BBC, RE: Trident arguments flawed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6266851.stm
BBC, RE: Trident plans premature: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6292955.stm
CND Trident brief document: http://www.cnduk.org/pages/binfo/ntr06.pdf
Network For Peace: http://www.networkforpeace.org.uk/Trident.html
SNP on Trident: http://www.snp.org/press-releases/2006/it-s-time-to-vote-against-trident/
Wikipedia, RE: Trident system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile
Wikipedia, RE: UK nuclear history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom

Please keep messages sensible and on topic.

[blurred]

There are fears that renewing Trident would cause other countries to enter a period of nuclear development. This would eventually lead to an arms race between several nations.

Whose fears are these, then? I'm not sure exactly which nations will be rushing to get nuclear weapons that don't already have them, or who aren't already developing them to be honest. Clams of some sort of 'arms race' are about as accurate as the US attempts at ICBM intercepts.

[ds2190]

Whose fears are these, then? I'm not sure exactly which nations will be rushing to get nuclear weapons that don't already have them, or who aren't already developing them to be honest. Clams of some sort of 'arms race' are about as accurate as the US attempts at ICBM intercepts.

The claims can't be proved as accurate or inaccurate. The fears could become a reality if we decide to renew and as we know from history about the Cold War; we should avoid a repeat at all costs.

[Party Phil]

if we decide to renew

I don't understand why you are saying "if" they decide to renew:

Recently, the Government has committed to the renewal of the Trident nuclear defence system.

[ds2190]

I don't understand why you are saying "if" they decide to renew:

The government is committed to it but it depends on the parliamentary vote.

[ttnbd]

The claims can't be proved as accurate or inaccurate. The fears could become a reality if we decide to renew and as we know from history about the Cold War; we should avoid a repeat at all costs.

But if the system were not to be renewed what is stopping these other countries from continuing to develop nuclear weapons?

It comes down to a simple situation.  Would you rather have a system like this and for it never to be used, or would you want us not to have it and run the risk of selling ourselves short in the future?

The arguement could be made that there is no proof that having a nuclear deterent actually stops rogue contries from developing/using nuclear weapons.  But if that arguement were to be used then we may aswell just get rid of the whole armed forces.

Think of the trident program (and the armed forces in general) as a kind of insurance policy.  You know it costs alot of money and there is a good chance you won't need to use it, but if something were to happen it'll cause more problems if you weren't to have that insurance.

Personally I would rather us have something like this that may never get used than run the risk of being attacked without fear of reprisal from an attacker.

[ds2190]

But if the system were not to be renewed what is stopping these other countries from continuing to develop nuclear weapons?

It comes down to a simple situation.  Would you rather have a system like this and for it never to be used, or would you want us not to have it and run the risk of selling ourselves short in the future?

The arguement could be made that there is no proof that having a nuclear deterent actually stops rogue contries from developing/using nuclear weapons.  But if that arguement were to be used then we may aswell just get rid of the whole armed forces.

Think of the trident program (and the armed forces in general) as a kind of insurance policy.  You know it costs alot of money and there is a good chance you won't need to use it, but if something were to happen it'll cause more problems if you weren't to have that insurance.

Personally I would rather us have something like this that may never get used than run the risk of being attacked without fear of reprisal from an attacker.

There would be a reaction if we were attacked though. Although I don't want us to rely on the US for nuclear defence, we would be able to. The probability of anyone launching a nuclear attack (except from the US on Iran) is almost none.

Also, the renewal of Trident could break the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Trident is effective for the next 20 years. I don't think a government that has led us in to an illegal war is fit to propose Trident's renewal. I'm against the use of nuclear weapons but I would rather the decision was delayed until after the next General Election or a referendum was held than have the Labour party ruin our nation even more.

As a member of CND I think that it is possible for a nuclear treaty to be signed by all nations. That isn't because CND have told me to think that; it is because it is realistic if the West stops attacking anywhere with a slight trace of oil.

[xavidub]

There would be a reaction if we were attacked though. Although I don't want us to rely on the US for nuclear defence, we would be able to. The probability of anyone launching a nuclear attack (except from the US on Iran) is almost none.

Also, the renewal of Trident could break the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Trident is effective for the next 20 years. I don't think a government that has led us in to an illegal war is fit to propose Trident's renewal. I'm against the use of nuclear weapons but I would rather the decision was delayed until after the next General Election or a referendum was held than have the Labour party ruin our nation even more.

As a member of CND I think that it is possible for a nuclear treaty to be signed by all nations. That isn't because CND have told me to think that; it is because it is realistic if the West stops attacking anywhere with a slight trace of oil.

Its totally pathetic to advocate the abandonment of nuclear weapons and then say that if Britain was attacked, it could rely on US nuclear capability.

[Jonathan Hall ☆☆☆☆☆☆]

Apart from the fact i wish we didn't have them, until there becomes a day when all countries have no nuclear weapons then i am happy to have them to stop our country being invaded by some despotic lunatic (Or the US president as he's normally called)

[Rob K]

Ah, yes, the British public are obviously the best placed and are well enough informed to start taking decisions affecting defence policy...

I wouldn't worry, most wouldn't know what to do without Davina telling them to "TEXT TRIDENT TO 88085"....

[iancr7]

I personally think it is sensible for this country to have a nuclear deterrent as it has proved its worth in the past (did help to persuade the soviets not to invade western Europe in the 60's) and undoubtedly will do so in the future. I'm not gung ho in anyway but we have them, lets keep them and upgrade them to tip top condition and let every lunatic in the world know we would be prepared to use them. no-one knows what the future holds and theres more than enough of a possibility we could see a nutter like Hitler or Stalin rise again, particularly in the middle east

[Dug]

Anyone ever seen the Yes Prime Minister series from the early 80's, specifically when Sir Humphry was explaining to Hacker why we needed Trident?

I don't have the script details nor can I find a youtube etc link but the gist was that Sir Humphry was telling a shocked Hacker it was unreliable, didn't fit our subs properly, had never been fully tested, was completely useless BUT it cost 2 billion pounds and as long as the British public were kept in the dark about Tridents inadequacies but aware of the ultra high cost of this deterrent, then they'll think it must be good and they'll want it, after all, he goes on, we'll never have to use it but if we do it'll be game over before we can find an excuse why it didn't work.

[BIGdavalad]

Although I don't want us to rely on the US for nuclear defence, we would be able to.

The US have sold us out before, they'll sell us out again if it's in their interests. You can only rely on one country to defend us, and that's us.

[ttnbd]

The US have sold us out before, they'll sell us out again if it's in their interests. You can only rely on one country to defend us, and that's us.

And I wouldn't want anyone else doing that.  Just hope you all have the equipment required should you be needed.

[Zeppelin]

I can't see the justification for spending these enormous amounts of money on something like Trident.
 Firstly, there's no evidence that the Soviets had any intention of invading Europe in the 60s - given what we now know about the state of the Soviet army at the time, it would be highly unlikely that they would have considered such an undertaking.
 It's arguable that the possession of nuclear weapons will not stop an aggressor - did it stop Argentina invading the Falklands?
 If we are talking about having them to stop a rogue 'lunatic' dictator - again, it won't work. The very fact that these people are unstable means that we can't rely on logic to sstop them.
 The main security threat to 'The West' is terrorism and having a nuclear 'deterrent' won't help there.

I was a member of CND in the 80s and didn't believe in having Trident then - with the fall of the Soviet Union, there is much less justification in spending these huge amounts of money on Trident.

If necessary, we should be spending some of the money on strengthening our defence against the threat of terrorism, which, to my mind is a far greater danger than the unlikely event of a nuclear attack on the UK.

[BIGdavalad]

Firstly, there's no evidence that the Soviets had any intention of invading Europe in the 60s

Evidence like a couple of 'Armoured Guards' and 'Shock' Armies posted to East Germany?

It's arguable that the possession of nuclear weapons will not stop an aggressor - did it stop Argentina invading the Falklands?

Argentina didn't think we'd fight for the Falklands. We're talking about a deterrent to trying to nuke us, not a deterrent to trying to steal a couple of islands and several thousand sheep in the south Atlantic

If we are talking about having them to stop a rogue 'lunatic' dictator - again, it won't work. The very fact that these people are unstable means that we can't rely on logic to sstop them.

We can rely on the fact that they want to live to stop them. Since even we have enough nuclear firepower to turn most of the world into a skating rink, I doubt there's very many people in this world who would consider a non-conventional attack on the UK a good idea.

The main security threat to 'The West' is terrorism and having a nuclear 'deterrent' won't help there.

And having anti terror police won't stop a nuclear attack. The main threat to Britain in the 1930s was tribesmen in the colonies - thank fuck someone thought that we might just end up in another war eh?

I was a member of CND in the 80s and didn't believe in having Trident then - with the fall of the Soviet Union, there is much less justification in spending these huge amounts of money on Trident.

Huge amounts? Even at the top end of the scale claimed here (I've never seen the £70 billion figure before), it's less over 30 years than the NHS or Welfare costs us EVERY year.

If necessary, we should be spending some of the money on strengthening our defence against the threat of terrorism, which, to my mind is a far greater danger than the unlikely event of a nuclear attack on the UK.

How many anti-terror police will we need in fifteen years when we get into an argument with a new hard line dictatorship in Russia and they turn us into a glass sculpture without fear of reprisal?

And I wouldn't want anyone else doing that.  Just hope you all have the equipment required should you be needed.

So do we...

[Fiend]

Surely you have enough conventional weapons to blow the crap out of most countries?

[¡Basta Ya!]

Surely you have enough conventional weapons to blow the crap out of most countries?

It would be nice if we stopped doing that to be honest :p

It's a lot of money to spend, isn't it. Schools, Hospitals and many other areas could really do with that money.

[BIGdavalad]

Surely you have enough conventional weapons to blow the crap out of most countries?

Nukes are far more fun...

Seriously though - we do. But all the conventional weapons in the world aren't going to scare anyone with one ICBM with a nuclear warhead.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I wasn't a supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 80's so I don't really have a problem with the weapons at a fundamental level.  I would question whether the money they would cost could not be better spent improving our security in other ways though.

The nature of the threat has changed and the country is probably now at greater risk from a smuggled in dirty nuclear device than it is from a coherent ICBM threat.  The country's national security would probably be better served if the money was spent on improving relations, improving intelligence and better equpping and manning the military units that we currently have in the field in places like Helmand.

In addition, at a time when the various nuclear non-proliferation treaties are under increasing pressure this is a decision that sends out the wrong message.

[hoonin]

Yes, we should, or we should at least have some form of nuclear deterrent.

Nobody else is going to disarm in the near future, so I don't see any advantages in us doing so unilaterally. As has been pointed out, the threats to the UK are vastly different now to what they were during the 80's, but that's not a justification for regressing a cornerstone of our defence system.

[GBF]

ban all puss-like weapons....only allow bow/arrow and swords...thats a real weapon...not something that you can fire while having a cuppa at number 10

[gearoid]

Just be glad you dont have an arab/muslim predominant government or you would have the Texan invading !

[Fiend]

If you look at the 50 year outlook its incredibly positive in my opinion. Back in the 60's and 70's you had the big bad USSR and a real threat of possible nuclear war.

Now the UK is sitting in the middle of the EU thousands of miles away from any country that could threaten. The only threat (which is totally overblown) is a terrorist attack. What do you need £70 billion of submarines and new missiles for?

[ds2190]

If you look at the 50 year outlook its incredibly positive in my opinion. Back in the 60's and 70's you had the big bad USSR and a real threat of possible nuclear war.

Now the UK is sitting in the middle of the EU thousands of miles away from any country that could threaten. The only threat (which is totally overblown) is a terrorist attack. What do you need £70 billion of submarines and new missiles for?

Especially when the next system can last for another 30 years. Whether or not we extend it's life by an extra 10 years, it will last until 2027. That is sufficient time to work on rebuilding international relations.

[blurred]

That is sufficient time to work on rebuilding international relations.

Haha, because it's just that easy and straightforward, isn't it? And it's not like we've ever had problems with international relations in the past, is it?

[ds2190]

Haha, because it's just that easy and straightforward, isn't it? And it's not like we've ever had problems with international relations in the past, is it?

We've destroyed our international standing in 4 years with Iraq. I think 5 times that amount is sufficient for showing the world that we aren't the nation people think we are.

I'm not saying we need to be best friends with all other countries; we just need to do something to show we are not a threat to anyone so that others won't threaten us.

[blurred]

We've destroyed our international standing in 4 years with Iraq. I think 5 times that amount is sufficient for showing the world that we aren't the nation people think we are.

I'm not saying we need to be best friends with all other countries; we just need to do something to show we are not a threat to anyone so that others won't threaten us.

What's it like to have such a simplistic view on world affairs? Really, I wish I was as naive as you about all this.

[ds2190]

What's it like to have such a simplistic view on world affairs? Really, I wish I was as naive as you about all this.

It's not simplistic. We are in the situation we are because of our actions. Even if we renew Trident we still need to do something to fix it. Why not use the money that would be spent on Trident to help?

As someone has said, there is no real threat of a nuclear attack from overseas. Terrorism and an internal dirty bomb are the only real threats and Trident will do nothing for that.

[Stretch Armstrong]

We should atleast use our old ones first - I have a few places in mind

WHOOOAAAAAA!!!!!!!

[hoonin]

We've destroyed our international standing in 4 years with Iraq. I think 5 times that amount is sufficient for showing the world that we aren't the nation people think we are.

You're talking two different things there. International diplomacy and security are not the same thing as peoples perception of British society.

I'm not saying we need to be best friends with all other countries; we just need to do something to show we are not a threat to anyone so that others won't threaten us.

Maybe we should have started closer to home by removing Tony Blair from office?

[ds2190]

Maybe we should have started closer to home by removing Tony Blair from office?

Which is why I said i'd be in favour of the vote being delayed until we're under a more stable government in my first post.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Which is why I said i'd be in favour of the vote being delayed until we're under a more stable government in my first post.

Whichever government is elected at the next general election will renew Trident.  No question.

[ds2190]

Whichever government is elected at the next general election will renew Trident.  No question.

Not necessarily. MPs are slowly changing their minds about Trident. With extra time to campaign about it, I have a feeling that it would be defeated in parliament.

[Terry de Niro]

Whichever government is elected at the next general election will renew Trident.  No question.

Spot on, unless the tree hugging party are voted in...

[Armin]

The easy path for politicians and public is to retain them, and their perceived yet illusory benefits indefinitely. A truly strong nation should be looking to rid the world of them. Unfortunately we are still trying to hold onto the remnants of empire and see these missiles as a way of ensuring a permanent seat at the big boys table. In order to keep that we're willing to forgo our moral and signed obligations to removing them.

We should be looking to honour our signed committment under the non proliferation treaty. This needn't be done in one step, we could scrap the vastly expensive, coldwar legacy submarine launched system whilst retaining an independent limited air launched deterrent in the short term.

In the medium term we could approach the French and offer to combine our 2 nuclear systems into one which would be considered to cover the EU. Thus reducing the number of countries with nuclear weapons, making their independent use for non deterrent purposes more difficult whilst still  providing an insurance against nuclear blackmail.

Long term we should be moving towards a nuclear free defence system. As should the rest of the world. India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, Brazil, South Africa all should be encouraged by the West to abandon their nuclear arsenals. The hypocrisy of countries like ours decrying others moves for nuclear weapons whilst still retaining them ourselves is clear. Furthermore the increased interlinking of a globalised economy makes their use increasingly more futile. We should be brave and make the first step.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Armin.  I would find it very difficult to argue with any of that. 

[ds2190]

The easy path for politicians and public is to retain them, and their perceived yet illusory benefits indefinitely. A truly strong nation should be looking to rid the world of them. Unfortunately we are still trying to hold onto the remnants of empire and see these missiles as a way of ensuring a permanent seat at the big boys table. In order to keep that we're willing to forgo our moral and signed obligations to removing them.

We should be looking to honour our signed committment under the non proliferation treaty. This needn't be done in one step, we could scrap the vastly expensive, coldwar legacy submarine launched system whilst retaining an independent limited air launched deterrent in the short term.

In the medium term we could approach the French and offer to combine our 2 nuclear systems into one which would be considered to cover the EU. Thus reducing the number of countries with nuclear weapons, making their independent use for non deterrent purposes more difficult whilst still  providing an insurance against nuclear blackmail.

Long term we should be moving towards a nuclear free defence system. As should the rest of the world. India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, Brazil, South Africa all should be encouraged by the West to abandon their nuclear arsenals. The hypocrisy of countries like ours decrying others moves for nuclear weapons whilst still retaining them ourselves is clear. Furthermore the increased interlinking of a globalised economy makes their use increasingly more futile. We should be brave and make the first step.

My sentiments exactly. Just not clever enough to put it into words

No-one else is willing to take the first step so we have a duty to do it. If we don't then we are cowards and hypocrites.

[Fiend]

Spot on, unless the tree hugging party are voted in...

Pity... That's £70 billion down the drain for you


(Psssst lend us a nuke if we get attacked yeah?)

[molbyscorchio]

We don't have an independent nuclear weapon/deterrent as it is.  We cannot fire these things if the US don't allow us to use their satellite missile guidance systems.  We can't fire without Bush's say so.  That's the fundamental issue that needs resolving before we talk about an independent weapon.