Nuclar weapons Debate

We need to maintain some form of nuclear deterrent. The fact is, we don't know where the next threat to UK security is going to come from and the whole point of a deterrent is that it deters attack but is never used.

I think Countries like the UK shouldn't have one, the UK pretty much relies on the USA for its protection, hell if it wasn't for them the UK would never have obtain a nuclear deterrent on their own.
I think the world in general should have nukes as it stops more powerful countries like the USA which has the most powerful conventional forces, from attacking countries like Russia or China because of MAD. If the UK wanted to be independent from the US, then by all means let them have nukes as a way to defend themselves from US domination.
I think that the day that the world develops ways of defending themselves from nukes is the day that all hell brakes lose.

The situation in Ukraine is completely different. This wasn't just Russia randomly invading a part of a country, it was them taking advantage of a situation which would benefit them. I see no benefit to Russia invading or attacking the UK.

The final collapse of (mainly British) colonial empires in the period post-WWII was what has led to the ending of imperialism. But colonialism was dying out slowly before this, probably mainly due to economic factors.

Yes it is a potential future deterrent. Whether anyone wants to attack the UK at the present time is irrelevant and this sort of short term thinking could potentially lead to the collapse of the British empire.

Suppose North Korea decides they want to control the UK after the UK disarms. They could bomb a small city and threaten to bomb more cities if the UK does not surrender. If however you have your own weapons, then this is no longer a feasible play. Do you really think your allies will protect you if you choose to disarm? You do so at your own risk.

How is it obsolete?

Of course we are. By being a prominent country in the world we are automatically on the radar of other nuclear countries. The Russians clearly view us as enough of a concern to be constantly flying their bombers and fighters into our airspace.

I don't think that you can really call it an empire anymore.
Why would North Korea bomb the UK? Surely they'd go for South Korea or the USA.



The guidance and reentry systems are obsolete.

I have heard nothing of the Russians flying military aircraft into UK airspace, which they're not allowed to do, only nearing the UK's airspace where the RAF have intercepted them.

We could do that lovely thing were we all sit in a circle, hold hands and agree to all surrender our nuclear weapons. However, **** don't go down like that bro. Someone is bound to keep one, and then everyone else is at a disadvantage.

The idea of a nuclear war (in fact any war) scares the hell out of me. Why haven't we got that we are here on this tiny planet by accidents of evolution and we should try to enjoy what time we do have by being a part of it all and getting along with one another?

Idealistic!? Yes I know but it scares me that our species can evidently be so intelligent yet we haven't got past the point of yearning for mass death.

As the wonderful Carl Sagan said: “The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.”

North Korea hates the USA and its allies. If there was no nuclear deterrent in the UK, North Korea strategically should bomb cities in the UK until ultimatums with the West met.

Do you really think the USA would retaliate on behalf of the UK in such a situation where the UK voluntarily removed its deterrent? The UK's argument for removing defense cannot always be "the US will save us" because the US is getting sick of having to bear the cost for defense of the whole alliance. If you disarm, I don't think you can rely on the US to retaliate on your behalf, and why should you? If you are against nuclear weapons you should also be against retaliation by the USA.

I don't think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if the Ukrainians had kept the several hundred nuclear weapons it inherited after the soviet union collapsed.

It's not quite an accurate analogy, since if only one of the men has matches then he removes any risk to himself, even if he lights them.

It's more like two men standing with sawn-off shotguns pointed at the other's face. Do you want to be the first to put yours down?

If both of you put them down at the same time, does it mean you'll be best pals? Or will there just be a fist fight, won by whoever grabs the gun back first? If everyone is willing to keep their finger off the trigger, but able to put it back faster than anyone could grab their gun, isn't that safer?

The only thing that worries me is a truly irrational actor getting hold of the shotgun, like an Islamic fundamentalist. Pakistan's 100 bombs worry me a lot more than Russia's 10,000. The peaceful equilibrium only works if both sides value self-preservation.

Totally agree.

Even if we were in a situation where there was a threat which required the consideration of using trident, what kind of government could justify the killing of millions of people? Not to mention the after-effects of the radiation on people and the environment. The UK would be guilty of crimes against humanity if Trident were ever used.

It's hilarious that people think Russia's supposed "threat" to the UK is one which requires us to be in the possession of nuclear weapons.

EDIT: I also think people on here are forgetting the cost of renewing Trident. It may only be a few billion a year to keep running, but the cost to renew runs into hundreds of billions.

It's worth noting that if we remained with NATO then the UK could still have 'NATO/US' nukes like Germany does.

Interestingly there was some polling done early this year in the US which suggested that if NATO nations like Estonia are attacked the US electorate would not support military action. When asked if they'd support military action should the UK be attacked, 69% said yes.

..

Though i do actually support renewing trident.

Re your last point: If the RAF felt they had to intercept it's surely because the planes were heading for UK airspace. Also there have been unreported incidents of Russian aircraft flying through the airspace of a number of Baltic countries (unreported that is until recently). Apparently it happens far more frequently than you would think. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, it's possible the MoD prefers not to cause a panic every time and chooses not to say anything publicly.

On the main question:

Glad most people seem to agree that we need to keep nuclear weapons. The case for it is fairly clear cut as with most other military forces - you have them in case you need them, but you hope you won't.

Out of interest is there anyone who voted in the Scottish referendum on here who was/still is swayed in either direction by the talk of nuclear disarmament after independence?

(I only ask because it always seemed rather strange for the SNP to be so fixated by it)

America and all other NATO countries do not have a choice, they are obilged to help any NATO country that is being attacked. If they don't, the whole alliance falls apart and every country will rush to make their own nuclear weapons.

NATO is the only reason why Germany don't have it own nuclear weapons, they certainly have the materials and know how to build their own nukes and delivery systems.

Likewise, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all rely on America for their ultimate defence against China and Russia. America's guarantee keeps them nuclear free even though they all have the materials and technical resources to make nukes.