Lot's of UK political parties are calling for an end to the UK's nuclear deterrent and I'm very much in two minds about it, so i thought i would get some input from the great BT community. Should we get rid of Trident and save an estimate £3 billion each year, along with the possible repercussions ? Or should we keep Trident ?
Keep it. It might cost a lot, but I believe that it brings/returns more to the country than it costs (jobs, status, etc.). But most of it is hard to quantify, or get figures on for obvious reasons... Getting rid is short sighted. Do people really believe that the £3billion will actually get spent usefully elsewhere? Its just a figure, like the £50million investment in "new roads"; as such it'll just disappear into the countries finances. £3b (out of £732b [source]) ~0.4% of total expenditure in 2014. Small fry.
given the game putin is playing with the soviet uniuon - keep it. Ukraine gave it and now look at them no US tanks in Europe anymore , very few US troops - winding down on the large standing german tank units - and BAOR tankers as well. need that bucket of instant sunshine as a weapon of last resort
@MadGinga, if it was just the money i would agree with you. The problem i have is the message WMD's gives, i guess it brings weight to the UK's standing in the world, in negotiations, etc, etc. But doesn't it also send another message to the likes of NK and Iran that it's OK to have WMD's.
Get rid. Basically, big nukes are useless. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to push the button, and if someone not in their right mind is going to, then the threat of retaliation is arguably not going to stop them, and actual retaliation won't make things any better either. It's a solution to a problem it created. Second, there is no reason for countries like Iran and NK to get rid of nukes if they see the West having nukes. It may be a good deterrent to keep a few in place for balance of power, but I'm not sure how Trident is making a significant contribution to the existing status quo in nuke land. Third, where could that £3 billion go instead? Why, to an army that is equipped to deal with terrorism and Third World countries going extremist apeshit. We are dealing with different enemies now, and are fighting different wars --ones that require surgical intervention, not swatting with the big nuke hammer.
It's not just the £3bn though. At the moment, having trident in the Clyde is stopping the exploitation of the oilfields in the area. When Faslane no longer has Trident, those fields will likely be opened up. Personally, I think it's worth keeping that area in the back pocket as long as possible, because the resources are finite. I've got mixed feelings about the nuclear deterrent in general. Yes I think Putin would still have gone into Crimea, but it would have played out quite differently.
Using nukes is bad, end of story. IMO if anyone uses nukes again it's game over really. M.A.D. springs to mind.
completely disagree - with the demob of Europe its only a matter of time before Russia start sniping off more land from countries ; right now he doesn't have the *right*equipment to fight more than 1 Ukraine war - but soon he will , you have the likes of Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania all worried if they will be next for the red bear
I don't deny that the reality of using a nuke is bad. Nukes against a terrorist organisation/lone wolf are not much use, but I do think they provide a deterrent to other countries, it may only be a brief pause for thought, but even the craziest of loons will hesitate to nuke someone if they thought that the country they run/dictate over/own would be wiped off the map. If the main (western) nuclear powers (USA, Russia, UK, France) were to give up ALL their nukes would you expect that the other countries would? i.e. Pakistan, India, China? What about the countries that probably have nukes but don't declare them? Israel? Do you think that countries attempting to develop them would stop? Iran, NK? Unfortunately what is out of the box, can't go back in. I doubt very much that if we didn't have Trident then there would be a direct £3b increase in funding for anything elsewhere, I would expect it to get eaten up in bureaucracy. TBH, keeping WMDs is always going to be a marmite-subject, and has to come down to a benefits/cost choice, and I do believe that the benefits (in jobs, research, world-standing, etc.) outweigh the cost (monetary, public perception).
I don't think anyone is saying that we should, or would ever use them. But doesn't just being a nuclear-weapon state carry weight in the international community, or when sitting at the negotiating table. Would the UK have the same standing in the world if we did get rid of nukes, would or words carry the same weight ?
More to the point, do you think Putin would waltz into the UK if it didn't have any? And you think that the threat of a nuclear response would cause Putin to back off and play nice? Or will he just point out all the nukes that he can deploy in return? Better be prepared to call that bluff, because he is. The problem with nukes is: there is no such thing as a limited exchange --it's all out Armageddon. So how far would you have to be pushed before you decide to end the world? I can tell you: even if Putin takes (back) Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, nobody will push the nuke button and literally end the world over a few minor struggling economies in Eastern Europe. Nuclear weapons are not meant to ever be used; they literally (and paradoxically) exist to ensure that nobody uses them. They are a response to a nuclear threat, and only good for such a threat. Because for anything short of the end of the world, the stakes of using them are too high. As such, how are they any use at all at a negotiating table? It's like carrying a bomb to a negotiation. If you are dealing with reasonable people, you don't need the bomb in the first place. If you are dealing with psychopaths, they'll just call your bluff and everybody gets blown up --which kind of defeats the point. You are imagining that the Defence Dept. will suddenly feel a bit at a loss with that extra £3 billion it suddenly has lying about. Rest assured that there has already been a lot of thinking about how that money could be spent instead.
Putin stuck his neck out, and basically ignored the international community, because he knows brinkmanship is easier to tolerate if it isn't your borders being breached. A few trade sanctions and much clucking and tutting but no danger of inbound missiles. If he can do that unchallenged, with piss-poor justification, who does he choose next? Finland? Righting the supposed wrong of granting them independence a century ago? Then on to Sweden and Norway, while the hand-wringing continues. And finally, a short trip across the North Sea to a blighty without an effective deterrent. Yes, it's all extremely far fetched and paranoid, and I don't expect that it's any more likely than you, but he doesn't have to march through Berlin and Paris to achieve it.
I love Trident gum. It's the best of all the gums. If you are looking for quality, low price Trident, then you should look here. FREE TRIDENT ENLARGEMENT TOOTHPASTE PILLS GUARANTEED
The reason he could do all that is because we have no military response to it. We have nukes, of course, but we know full well that sending a few his way is not going to solve any problem if he can return that gesture tenfold. So we are stuck with conventional military responses and unfortunately we just blew our wad on a disastrous 10-year campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan which did not make any difference. I mean, reflect on that for a second. So we in the West are tapped out. Russia meanwhile had over a decade to get its military act together again. The only place we can hit Putin is in the economy, hence the sanctions.
That's all well and good when talking about the other countries that also have nuclear deterrence, but what about the other 190 odd countries ?
