Trident renewal?

[unclebulgaria67]

I have come to a conclusion that having a UK nuclear weapon system is not a deterent, as no PM would ever threaten to use it or actually use it, if the UK was attacked. If Russia wanted to, they could attack the UK with enough conventional weapons to wipe out most of the key infrastructure e.g power stations. I really doubt that UK, France or US would use nuclear weapons against Russia in response. They would probably use conventional weapons with NATO allies, against various Russian targets, to see if that prevented a continuing war. It would only be after a protracted conventional war between nuclear powers, that some nuclear warheads would be used.

 

A nuclear deterent is an end of the world weapon, which would only ever be used, when it was seen as the last possible option available. I just doubt that anyone would authorise their use or even threaten to use them. The biggest danger is that terrorists and extremists get hold of nuclear materials, which they use against UK or NATO allies. We are never going to use nuclear warheads against terrorists or rogue states,

 

I think the future threats are more likely to come from terrorists and criminals, than other countries. It would be better to spend the Trident money on conventional weapons, armed forces personnel and security services. The UK would still come under the nuclear umbrella of France and US, who would not be too concerned by UK disarming nuclear wepons.

[Conniff]

Don't worry about all that rubbish, just think of the amount of jobs it will bring and retain.

[antone]

Don't worry about all that rubbish, just think of the amount of jobs it will bring and retain.

 

That's very socialist of you

[Conniff]

I don't see how job creation has anything to do with common ownership and socialism. Isn't Cameron bragging about the cascade of jobs they have created every Wednesday at PMQs

[tobyjugg2]

I don't see how job creation has anything to do with common ownership and socialism. Isn't Cameron bragging about the cascade of jobs they have created every Wednesday at PMQs

 

I wonder how many zero hours contract minimum wage jobs Trident renewal would generate?

 

I'm still undecided on this.

 

We can't afford it [full stop]

 

but can we afford to be without it - well yes as long as other 'western powers' maintain one.

 

We simply aren't able to maintain the 'world power' status now all the money is in the hands of a few bankers and oligarchs. and all we have is a crushing debt

... and they would rather spend our money on expensive meals and champagne, multi million pound houses all over the world and yachts - all for themselves of course.

 

So the real issue is - we simply cant afford it.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes Trident renewal will provide jobs, but if the money was spent on other things, you might create even more jobs. I would say building 200,000 council houses would be far more useful and lasting.

 

I am not against nuclear deterents in principle, but i am not sure they offer the protection some people think. If Russia declared war on Turkey, i don't think NATO allies would be rushing to fight against Russia. If Russia sent 2 dozen bombers towards London with nuclear armed subs in the English channel, i don't think Cameron or Obama would be threatening Putin. Having nuclear weapons does make people in power think about the ultimate level of escalation to nuclear war, but because they mean end of the world, they are very unlikely to be used, whatever the provocation.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes Trident renewal will provide jobs, but if the money was spent on other things, you might create even more jobs. I would say building 200,000 council houses would be far more useful and lasting.

I agree

 

I am not against nuclear deterents in principle, but i am not sure they offer the protection some people think. If Russia declared war on Turkey, i don't think NATO allies would be rushing to fight against Russia. If Russia sent 2 dozen bombers towards London with nuclear armed subs in the English channel, i don't think Cameron or Obama would be threatening Putin. Having nuclear weapons does make people in power think about the ultimate level of escalation to nuclear war, but because they mean end of the world, they are very unlikely to be used, whatever the provocation.

I dont agree that with this.

If Russia attacked Turkey (or the UK), as apposed to defended Syrian airspace, then NATO would intervene - would be required to intervene - although I think all would hope that war, let alone nuclear war would be averted.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis.

 

If only one nation had nukes, let alone that that nation could be North Korea, then whatever conventional power was available to everyone else, that one nation would be the most powerful nation on earth.

[SabreSheep]

Where as if every country in the world had nukes, they may never be used again

[unclebulgaria67]

Where as if every country in the world had nukes, they may never be used again

 

A Tory MP made the argument that Japan not having nuclear weapons made the deterent argument. I.e the US only used them, because Japan did not have nuclear weapons. But this misses the fact that there had been a conventional war beforehand, with tens of thousands of deaths.

 

Nuclear is the ultimate last resort weapon and we have seen plenty of wars going on since WW2. It is arguable that having nuclear weapons stops conventional wars, between countries holding them. There have been proxy wars, where nuclear powers have funded others to fight wars for them.

 

Why not have a UN commanded permanent patrol of nuclear armed submarines travelling around the world, with the order to use them against any country that starts wars. I.e a a nuclear backed zero tolerance policy against all wars.

[SabreSheep]

nice idea

 

one word currently ruins said good idea

 

VETO

[tobyjugg2]

Where as if every country in the world had nukes, they may never be used again

 

LOL - how poignant

 

 

A Tory MP made the argument that Japan not having nuclear weapons made the deterent argument. I.e the US only used them, because Japan did not have nuclear weapons.

 

But this misses the fact that there had been a conventional war beforehand, with tens of thousands of deaths.

 

Nuclear is the ultimate last resort weapon and we have seen plenty of wars going on since WW2. It is arguable that having nuclear weapons stops conventional wars, between countries holding them. There have been proxy wars, where nuclear powers have funded others to fight wars for them.

 

America only used two nukes because they were the only 2 nukes in the world.

Wonder how the world would be if America had 50 let alone 500 within a few weeks of the first going off?

 

Nukes certainly haven't stopped conventional war - but they probably have stopped a nuclear attack.

That will be very different if the jehadis get them

[antone]

I don't see how job creation has anything to do with common ownership and socialism. Isn't Cameron bragging about the cascade of jobs they have created every Wednesday at PMQs

 

What - the government spends money on something hugely expensive and completely pointless simply in order to provide jobs for the masses, and you can't see what's socialist about it?

[tobyjugg2]

What - the government spends money on something hugely expensive and completely pointless simply in order to provide jobs for the masses, and you can't see what's socialist about it?

 

Now that is superb.

[Conniff]

What - the government spends money on something hugely expensive and completely pointless simply in order to provide jobs for the masses, and you can't see what's socialist about it?

 

That is solely in your opinion. At this present time, you cannot say that it is pointless. The ball if firmly in the court of those that believe this 'deterrent' does work as up to now, we havn't been attacked and you can't show that without it we won't be.

[etoc2001]

Don't renew - put the £26b in health, education and creating new jobs

[SabreSheep]

That is solely in your opinion. At this present time, you cannot say that it is pointless. The ball if firmly in the court of those that believe this 'deterrent' does work as up to now, we havn't been attacked and you can't show that without it we won't be.

 

Bit of a strawman argument

 

There is also no proof that we would of been attacked with nuclear weapons has we not had a nuclear deterrent. It could be argued that it is a happy coincidence that we have not been attacked whilst having a deterrent.

[Conniff]

Bit of a strawman argument

 

There is also no proof that we would of been attacked with nuclear weapons has we not had a nuclear deterrent. It could be argued that it is a happy coincidence that we have not been attacked whilst having a deterrent.

 

As it hasn't happened, there is more reason to say it is the nuclear deterrent than the other way around.

[tobyjugg2]

As it hasn't happened, there is more reason to say it is the nuclear deterrent than the other way around.

 

Do you know how many very desirable 'plots of land' there are in Europe and the world where the nation is neither a nuclear power or a member of NATO?

.. and yet a number of them have not been at war with anyone at least since the end of wwII?

 

and as a second point

Our nukes certainly didn't deter Argentina.

[Conniff]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the UK which is the subject of this thread.

[SabreSheep]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the UK which is the subject of this thread.

 

This is a discussion about the UK and Nuclear Deterrent in General

[SabreSheep]

As it hasn't happened, there is more reason to say it is the nuclear deterrent than the other way around.

 

Not really.

 

We have nto been hit by asteroids either, is that down to nuclear deterrent?

[tobyjugg2]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the UK which is the subject of this thread.

 

LOL - I added the second point before I saw your post Conniff,

... but even without that, the thread includes the 'value' of a nuclear deterrent as per the first line of the first post, and your comment.

[Conniff]

This is a discussion about the UK and Nuclear Deterrent in General

 

Not according to the opening post "I have come to a conclusion that having a UK nuclear weapon system is not a deterent,"

[unclebulgaria67]

There are a few issues

 

1) Does UK need anuclear weapon ?

 

2) Would the UK be protected by US and France having nuclear weapons under the NATO alliance ?

 

3) Would there ever be multilateral agreements to remove all nuclear weapons ?

 

4) Are nuclear weapons actually a deterent ?

 

My answers

 

1) No

2) No guarantee of support, unless US and France were attacked

3) No. There is no chance of many countries giving up nuclear weapons. They might further reduce the number of warheads they hold.

4) Debateable, as an end of the world last resort weapon. I think there would have to be considerable conventional war losses, before any instruction was given to fire them. Even then, the line of command is unclear, as many experts say that a UK PM would need approval by a US President.

[Old Cogger]

definitely a deterrent, without it then we would be vulnerable, this I say having been in a Nuclear Regiment in the 60s so would know a bit more of possibilities! also use to be in the Observer Corps hence have an idea of possibilities , god help us if no deterrent, imagine N. Korea with and all others without = madness, if the other people have it then we need deterrent , the old bit of paper which that stupid PM had from Hitler says it all!