The Student Room Group

Opinions on Trident?

Poll

What is your opinion of trident?

In my opinion, getting rid of trident would remove our only deterrent and open us up for invasion. All those lefties who think that they can make a perfect world irritate me.

Scroll to see replies

MAD kept the peace for 60 yrs. Perhaps the prospect of the likes of Iran becoming a nuclear power means it isn't the time to ditch it.
Britain's already been invaded you just don't know it.


If this is about Russia you can't really think they are in a position to invade Britain?

By the way Britain are helping train Ukraine troops just like they're training what they claim to be moderates in Syria. Ukraine's forces have killed many civilians and forced up to a million to flee the country with many heading to Russia for safety according to the UN themselves.

British should be ashamed of themselves for what they're doing.

Don't be a patriotard Britain are in on causing this mess along with America.
I havent really looked into the whole nuclear weapons issue to have an informed opinion. But if a nuclear weapon wiped out the entire planet tomorrow, none of us would be alive to be bothered by it, so it really doesnt matter either way.
Reply 4
Get rid. Monumental waste of money. But more to the point, I dislike being a citizen of a country that possess one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

Referendum?
Reply 5
We need a nuclear deterrent, and having a sea deterrent is probably the best option available. It's more expensive than a silo, but if we had one of those on British soil too many people would complain.

That said though, it wouldn't hurt to downgrade to maybe 3 submarines instead. Nonetheless, we definitely need a minimum nuclear deterrent. It's the only thing which keeps us in the security council and allows us to be considered a great power.

I'd rather have a weapon and never have to use it than meet the day that I have need of it and don't have it.
Option 4) Upgrade it. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is moronic so long as other countries have them. Trident is old though, and it might make sense at this point to be upgrading our nuclear deterrent perhaps to one that is MORE independent from the US than trident is.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by limetang
Option 4) Upgrade it. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is moronic so long as other countries have them. Trident is old though, and it might make sense at this point to be upgrading our nuclear deterrent.


We should develop our own and use our own satellites instead of relying upon the Americans. Trident is not independent, let's face it, but it's definitely useful. But if we are to renew it then we should research our own weapons in the future.
Reply 8
I've seen it argued before that we could get rid of our nuclear weapons and it wouldn't matter, because America would help if we were ever in a situation where they might be needed. That might be the case right now, but it would be foolish to assume it will always be so as isolationism continues to grow in the West. It's never a good idea to be completely dependent on any one other country for our defence, regardless of how close an ally they are now.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 9
It might be worth thunking about where to base Trident, if it's being continued. I doubt Scotland will be willing to put up with it in the long term. Substantial financial incentives might work, but there's no guarantee.
Reply 10
To be fair, we're probably already screwed. We've not had either nuclear power or nuclear weaponry for long, and we've already made a hash of the use of both.
Might be worth looking up the origins of the term "Useful Idiots"
I agree with the upkeep of Trident. It is an essential deterrent tool as well as a good weapon of final crisis.
It should be upgraded such that we don't have to rely on the Americans and thus it can be a truly independent nuclear deterrent
Reply 14
Original post by caravaggio2
Might be worth looking up the origins of the term "Useful Idiots"


What is the significance?
Original post by Evening
We need a nuclear deterrent, and having a sea deterrent is probably the best option available. It's more expensive than a silo, but if we had one of those on British soil too many people would complain.

That said though, it wouldn't hurt to downgrade to maybe 3 submarines instead. Nonetheless, we definitely need a minimum nuclear deterrent. It's the only thing which keeps us in the security council and allows us to be considered a great power.

I'd rather have a weapon and never have to use it than meet the day that I have need of it and don't have it.



Why don't the English keep it in their own country since they're the ones who seem to want to keep it? I live 20 miles away from that piece of crap, I'm in the death zone, my family and friends are in the death zone, heck almost the entire of Scotland is in the death zone if that thing goes wrong. If you want to keep it, keep it in your own backyard and stop treating us like scum second-class-citizens who's lives are worth so little.
Original post by offhegoes
It might be worth thunking about where to base Trident, if it's being continued. I doubt Scotland will be willing to put up with it in the long term. Substantial financial incentives might work, but there's no guarantee.


You can't put a price on the lives of my people. They should get rid of it or keep it in their own country.
Reply 17
Not only should the nuclear weapons be kept but they should also be upgraded, i doubt the trident ICBM's would be much use when the s-500 enters service
At just £3bn a year, it's great value.
Original post by Crb822
In my opinion, getting rid of trident would remove our only deterrent and open us up for invasion. All those lefties who think that they can make a perfect world irritate me.


Trident is like the exotic vegetables in asda. They seemed good at the time when you bought them, you have no idea what is in them and they will never be used for anything because you're too scared to touch them. :biggrin:

Quick Reply

Latest