Trident is more important than ever.

Original post by Morgsie

Here we go again, people shoving the opposing view out of the debate.

States murder people you know and it would appalling if States did it with the BOMB

Welll it is a debate forum you muppet.

Or would you like to live in a world run by readers of the Gaurdian where dissent is not permitted.

I'm not really bothred how I die. Nuke, bullet, knife, bomb. I'll still be dead. States kill people. I'd just rather we be in a position to defend ourselves should the need arise.

Come on. Man up. Where's your argument/debate?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 42

username129099

15

Original post by Morgsie

a certain view is being put across and forget the opposing and people will make sure that view is not listened to. This is what is happening here and other parts of the site.

People have oppose certain views have no choice to get it aired

Pretty sure this entire thread is listening to you. Apart from you everyone is in some form of agreement that we cannot be sure, should not rely on others.

No one comes to TSR to hear a baseless opinion. The entire point is we debate.

Reply 43

Original post by MatureStudent36

Welll it is a debate forum you muppet.

Or would you like to live in a world run by readers of teh Gaurdian where dissent is not permitted.

Come on. Man up. Where's your argument/debate?

I have already debated but it is not good for your hegemonic views and therefore you and others are forcing the opposing view away

Reply 44

username129099

15

Original post by Morgsie

States murder people you know and it would appalling if States did it with the BOMB

It could be pretty easily argued that nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they have taken. Without nuclear weapons I doubt the cold war would have stayed so. Its a deterant, the whole point is it avoids war.

Reply 45

Drewski

19

Original post by Morgsie

We need multilateral disarmament through a legally binding Treaty

No, we need something to render a nuclear weapon redundant. You can't uninvent something.

As for the "we could spend money on something we'd actually use" argument; you don't stop buying holiday insurance because nothing's gone wrong in the past.

Reply 46

Original post by doggyfizzel

It could be pretty easily argued that nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they have taken. Without nuclear weapons I doubt the cold war would have stayed so. Its a deterant, the whole point is it avoids war.

deterrent against what though? No one knows what threats will occur

Reply 47

Aj12

18

Original post by Morgsie

deterrent against what though? No one knows what threats will occur

That's the point. Better to have it and not need it then not have it and need it.

Reply 48

Original post by Morgsie

I have already debated but it is not good for your hegemonic views and therefore you and others are forcing the opposing view away

How have you debated?

Nukes are bad. - I agree with you on that one.
Nukes shouldn't be used - I agree with you on that one. You may not realise but we'll be dead by the time our tridents get launched. It's a deterrent. i.e. it's there to stop people attacking you in the first place.

One might argue that if you're expecting to have your say and not be challenged, the it is you who are forcing your views on us.

Reply 49

Emmie3303

12

What worries me about delays over Trident is that the skills to build the Successor submarines will only be available for so long. Once those skills are lost we wouldn't be able to build submarines capable of carrying a system like Trident even if we wanted to. As far as I am aware there is nothing that could replace Trident that would be as effective. Land based weapons can be located and taken out but Trident submarines could be anywhere at any time and even most of the crew don't know where they actually are at any given moment, which is what makes it such an effective deterrent. As soon as the ability to retaliate becomes conditional the deterrent is nowhere near as effective.

Original post by Morgsie

Lets commit mass murder with Nukes. I don't want another Hiroshima happening again

The point of Trident is essentially its ability to prevent mass murder. No state or nation with a leader that is in their right mind would risk firing a nuclear weapon at us because Trident is capable of retaliating from anywhere at any time and causing catastrophic damage. That potential for retaliation is enough to negate the potential benefits of firing a nuclear weapon at us in the first place and there is nothing that is a more effective deterrent than that. In an ideal world there would be no nuclear weapons but now that the knowledge exists we have to take defensive measures. To rely on others to protect our nation from nuclear attack would be unwise as we cannot predict what will happen in the next 50 years or where we will be on the world stage.

Reply 50

Original post by Aj12

That's the point. Better to have it and not need it then not have it and need it.

Trident is a luxury item. HELLO were in debt we cannot afford it, the money can be used to pay our debts and used on conventional forces who the Tories the party of defence is reducing til the point where cannot defend our interests etc

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 51

TheHistoryStudent

11

Original post by MatureStudent36

You're assuming that some of these nations leaders actually think long term.

Not withstanding the cuban missile crisis, the closest we came to instant cans of sun shine opening up was Excercise Able Archer 83.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

That was when the Russians actually believed in a limited nuclear exchange. They weren't the brightest and were more than slightly paranoid. If the Russians could consider it I have no doubt in my mind that some Jelly head from the middle east or North Korea would quite happily press the button.

It would however appear that even the Saudi's are slightly worried about Iran and its nuclear weapons programme. Nuclear Arms race in the Middle East anyone?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/dennis-ross-saudi-king-vowed-to-obtain-nuclear-bomb-after-iran-1.433294

Perfect nuke country. OPen, not very densly populated. A perfect opportunity to demonstrate you resolve by blowing up somebody elses piece of uninhabited desert as a sign of intent.

This stuff all pretty much comes down to the point I made about us never expecting a rational leader to press the button, some political aspects (such as russian paranoia, and North Korea's rock and hard place situation between appearing strong to it's own people out of fear of losing it's authority and posturing to the west to do it) make leaders do stupid things, or at least, not think rationally. I'd actually argue this is the biggest reason we don't want such countries acquiring such weapons to be honest, because we honestly don't know what they'll do with them.

Reply 52

Drewski

19

Original post by Morgsie

deterrent against what though? No one knows what threats will occur

Nail. Head. Hit.

Reply 53

Original post by Morgsie

Trident is a luxury item. HELLO were in debt we cannot afford it

I can't really afford car tax or household and buildings insurance, but guess what I pay it.

We pay on average about £45 billion a year on debt interest. Trident costs less than £1.5 Billion a year as an insurance policy.

If we want to pay for it we just need to shut the NHS down for a week or two and we've paid for it.

Reply 54

Original post by MatureStudent36

I can't really afford car tax or household and buildings insurance, but guess what I pay it.

We pay on average about £45 billion a year on debt interest. Trident costs less than £1.5 Billion a year as an insurance policy.

If we want to pay for it we just need to shut the NHS down for a week or two and we've paid for it.

OH trident is far more important than the NHS, your words not mine. The NHS is the bigger priority than poxy nukes which we won't use

Reply 55

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

This stuff all pretty much comes down to the point I made about us never expecting a rational leader to press the button, some political aspects (such as russian paranoia, and North Korea's rock and hard place situation between appearing strong to it's own people out of fear of losing it's authority and posturing to the west to do it) make leaders do stupid things, or at least, not think rationally. I'd actually argue this is the biggest reason we don't want such countries acquiring such weapons to be honest, because we honestly don't know what they'll do with them.

To quote one of my lecturers. Everybody behaves rationally. Or atleast what they think is rational.

What's rational to one person rarelycomes across as rational to another.

Reply 56

TheHistoryStudent

11

Original post by Morgsie

OH trident is far more important than the NHS, your words not mine

That's not what he's saying and you know it. Stop making a fool of yourself. He's merely pointing out how Trident is merely a drop in the ocean as far as our spending is concerned compared to other essential services.

Original post by MatureStudent36

To quote one of my lecturers. Everybody behaves rationally. Or atleast what they think is rational.

What's rational to one person rarelycomes across as rational to another.

A fair point :wink:

To me it only goes to show the importance of having them so that the deterrent aspect of nuclear weapons can come into play.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 57

Aj12

18

Original post by Morgsie

Trident is a luxury item. HELLO were in debt we cannot afford it, the money can be used to pay our debts and used on conventional forces who the Tories the party of defence is reducing til the point where cannot defend our interests etc

I don't call long term security a luxury....

Reply 58

Original post by Aj12

I don't call long term security a luxury....

we won't use damn things, get rid of items we won't have to use or reduce them.

Reply 59