Original post by marcusfoxNo, you have given a wide range of opinions. They are not reasons, and they are not credible.
Simply stating 'I have done this' doesn't make it so, since all you have used is a journalistic opinion piece where the strongest opinion he is willing to make is 'it is unlikely', and another where Greenpeace and an anti-nuclear activist go up against the government with nothing but their opinion and come off second best, as every one of their arguments is comfortably rebutted with facts in the second half of the source.
It's ironic that you claim that I believe all this without engaging my brain. I am simply asking myself what is most likely position. I can look at the evidence and consider the arguments.
We have a nuclear deterrent which relies on the principle of the weapons being based on a strategic and undetectable hidden platform (stealthy submarines) which means that the possibility of them being taken out by a tactical first strike is unlikely, because if their location is unknown, it will be extremely unlikely for them to be taken out by a nuclear strike.
I ask myself, which is most likely.
1 - The UK has full control over the weapons, and they can be launched by the submarine, either on the direct order of HM government, or in the event of HM government being destroyed in a surprise attack after following procedure to ensure that the UK government no longer exists, they can be launched independently on the basis of the codes and orders issued before departure.
2 - The UK does not have full control over the weapons, and they cannot be launched by the submarine without the Americans giving permission. In the event of HM government (and/or the American Government) being destroyed in a surprise attack they just sit there uselessly, because the means to issue the firing orders and thus launch the missiles no longer exists, removing the whole deterrent rationale for having a hidden sea based nuclear strike force at an unknown location.
You are going with option two, obviously.
While I are always glad to have young people participating in debates, its with the proviso that they keep the debate at an adult level.
You have so far used silly insults against those who disagree with you and members of the armed forces.
Have made silly statements with no cites (opinion does not count as a cite) to back them up.
When called on to your silly statements and insults, continue to insist on them as fact, in spite of other posters telling you otherwise, and have pretended to be shorthanding or paraphrasing in an attempt to avoid having to concede the point.
Perhaps you have been a little bit too ambitious taking part in a discussion between adults as you appear to be more then a little out of your depth when it comes to sensible argument.
It is to your credit that you have actually made the attempt to participate, but I think that its more then likely that your parents would prefer you to concentrate on your schoolwork for the time being, and maybe enter the forum of ideas in a few years time.
All young people nowadays are encouraged to feel confident in their abilities, but while this is good for their self esteem, in many cases (such as yours for example), it simply doesn't come up to the mark, abilitywise.
Don't lose hope, I fully expect you to be a fully lucid, persuasive and knowledable debater at some time in the future .
But that time is not now.