New poll shows public opinion split on Trident
Scroll to see replies
Original post by KingKoala
How about we ditch Trident and then ditch tuition fees?
And ditch social mobility too I guess
Original post by Aj12
A nuclear deterrent deters existential threats, it prevents a situation where the UK could find itself wiped out, by either massive conventional forces or a WMD attack. Any one who believes ISIS is an existential threat to the UK needs their head examined. The head of the USMC recently pointed out that mismanagement was a greater threat to the force than ISIS. It is a threat yes, but one that can be dealt with through conventional forces. Trident is not meant to deter terrorist attacks by non-state actors in the same way an armed police unit does not deter cyber crime.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Could well argue that if the likes of Isis ever got Nuclear Weapons they wouldn't be put off at all by ours given their whole ideology.
It is not an unquestionable, unarguable fact that trident is a deterrent.
Original post by Jammy Duel
It was party political? What the **** are you on?
It had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, nothing.
Original post by Jammy Duel
And ditch social mobility too I guess
No but it would give people of different classes more of an equal chance.
Original post by Bornblue
It had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, nothing.
Did it not? Would you like to remind me how both started? How about the views being brought up being the polar opposites?
Original post by KingKoala
No but it would give people of different classes more of an equal chance.
Which has demonstrated time and again to be false.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Which has demonstrated time and again to be false.
With education, when?
Original post by Jammy Duel
Did it not? Would you like to remind me how both started? How about the views being brought up being the polar opposites?
No, it absolutely didn't.
My point was that it shouldn't be accepted as an unquestionable fact that trident is a deterrent. We should be allowed to debate whether it is or not.
Your point had nothing to do with that.
Original post by Bornblue
It is not an unquestionable, unarguable fact that trident is a deterrent.
Yes it is, to a certain type of warfare .
You're acting as though because it won't deter a certain type of warfare it is then entirely redundant.
Will it deter then main threats we're facing now? Probably not. Are those threats going to be the same in 30+ years? You can't possibly know. Neither can anyone else. So while you don't know, you retain your insurance policy.
Irrespective of the financial cost of trident and the fact that it is a diabolical waste of money, I oppose it on environmental grounds along with its impact on local populations. My evidence for being anti-trident comes from my mother and before her my grandfather. Back in 1964 my grandfather was employed by Strathclyde University as skipper of their research vessel, imaginatively called 'The Strathclyde' which tested all the waters around the Clyde Estuary amongst other waterways. My grandfather moved from the north east of Scotland to take up this post with the family moving to Dalandhui, a property owned by the university at the head of the Gareloch just across the water from Faslane. Prior to moving there my mum and aunts spent their summers in the local swimming pool and swimming at the local beach - water babies. Naturally they were delighted to have a jetty, a swimming pool and a whole body of water in which to play in at their new home. My mum told me they were quite mutinous when granddad banned them from ever going into the water, by not as much as a toe, something they struggled to understand being only 8years old but they were left in no doubt whatsoever that this was one rule that was non-negotiable and that punishment would come in the form of turning green with the possiblity of an extra limb growing where none should be. When she got older my mum understood that of course her father had been protecting his daughters from being contaminated from the highly polluted and dangerous waters of the Gareloch and its environs. The research undertaken by Strathclyde and Strathclyde II was invaluable in highlighting the environmental impact of this abomination placed on Scottish waterways. I do believe that Garelochhead is also one of the hotspots for childhood cancers though I do not have links to evidence proving this. It is something I remember reading.
As an aside my grandad was present at the inauguration of Strathclyde when it received its university status. Though long before my time my mum remembers Professor Curran and some of the other academics from regular visits to the house to discuss aspects of work with grandad. The house which also had the university's boat club was a hive of activity at weekends and mum said that though she was just little the students were really nice to her and her sisters and when grandad wasn't there to say 'no' they'd go out sailing or out in the speedboats with the students. I think this personal connection with the university is why I am hoping that my application to the university isn't rejected! Sorry I got carried away there!
which tested all the waters around the Clyde Estuary amongst other waterways. My grandfather moved from the north east of Scotland to take up this post with the family moving to Dalandhui, a property owned by the university at the head of the Gareloch just across the water from Faslane. Prior to moving there my mum and aunts spent their summers in the local swimming pool and swimming at the local beach - water babies. Naturally they were delighted to have a jetty, a swimming pool and a whole body of water in which to play in at their new home. My mum told me they were quite mutinous when granddad banned them from ever going into the water, by not as much as a toe, something they struggled to understand being only 8years old but they were left in no doubt whatsoever that this was one rule that was non-negotiable and that punishment would come in the form of turning green with the possiblity of an extra limb growing where none should be. When she got older my mum understood that of course her father had been protecting his daughters from being contaminated from the highly polluted and dangerous waters of the Gareloch and its environs. The research undertaken by Strathclyde and Strathclyde II was invaluable in highlighting the environmental impact of this abomination placed on Scottish waterways. I do believe that Garelochhead is also one of the hotspots for childhood cancers though I do not have links to evidence proving this. It is something I remember reading. As an aside my grandad was present at the inauguration of Strathclyde when it received its university status. Though long before my time my mum remembers Professor Curran and some of the other academics from regular visits to the house to discuss aspects of work with grandad. The house which also had the university's boat club was a hive of activity at weekends and mum said that though she was just little the students were really nice to her and her sisters and when grandad wasn't there to say 'no' they'd go out sailing or out in the speedboats with the students. I think this personal connection with the university is why I am hoping that my application to the university isn't rejected! Sorry I got carried away there!
Trident is designed as more of a deterrence than a set of weapons that we actually USE..... but who would we actually attack? There aren't really any COUNTRIES as a whole that are targets.... more like groups within them. Nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic loss of civilian life and probably wouldn't eliminate anyone very much. Take IS for example, which is the most discussed one recently. There was quite a bit of controversy over the airstrikes, partially because IS isn't in one place. This isn't the cold war and submarines are ineffectual and outdated. I read that it takes days to fire the missiles, by which point considerable damage could have been done. I am kind of inclined to think that if the UK renews its nuclear weaponry, it is likely to become a trend and everyone will start building up nuclear armaments, until it effectively becomes a competition (Like the dreadnoughts race).
Also, just from a social perspective, when there are so many problems in the world, why are we discussing nukes when there are still people without access to clean water and with diminished human rights? Especially because these nukes will cost £34bn (Corbyn's £100 billion estimate doesn't correlate to what anyone else has said, ever, so i'm using the Greenpeace figure)
Also, just from a social perspective, when there are so many problems in the world, why are we discussing nukes when there are still people without access to clean water and with diminished human rights? Especially because these nukes will cost £34bn (Corbyn's £100 billion estimate doesn't correlate to what anyone else has said, ever, so i'm using the Greenpeace figure)
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Most of it is utterly absurd, as it isn't independent and never has been (that is one of the big myths we live under - it couldn't be fired without US permission and therefore is part of the US arsenal anyway), nobody now alive would care if we could and did retaliate as we would mostly be dead or dying, which kind of invalidates the idea that it 'defends' us in any meaningful way, the 'deterrent' is no different and adds nothing to the existing and overwhelmingly massive US deterrent, it is stonkingly expensive, it's the wrong solution for the age of freelance terror movements and states and it is hopelessly vulnerable to new technologies like super hacking and drones.
In short, it's yesterday's solution, but the cost falls on us today and stops the country from doing many much more useful things.
In short, it's yesterday's solution, but the cost falls on us today and stops the country from doing many much more useful things.
Really? REALLY? Please, be better informed before posting complete rubbish. Also another person who fails to understand their purpose.
It's completely independent. The delivery system, that's rocket motor and guidance is US by design and production only, that's all. Warhead, detonator, detonation mechanism, launch systems and electronics are all UK. Unlike America, they can be fired by the sub's commander without auth from the Government.
People do care, its called MAD for a reason, the offensive country would face the same destruction it caused. This is the whole core idea of the weapon, that it is never fired. The attacker knows they will face the same destruction, as attack is suicidal. Hence deterent. If you have to use it, it's whole purpose as a weapon has already failed.
It's unfair and unwise to rely on the US for everything. They may have a political change or be unwilling to help. Europe is also a seperate continent and needs it's own set, despite the US having them.
It's actually very, very, very cheap for the benefits it gives. ~£1.6 bil a year is nothing and thats for new subs as well! You'd be stupid not to pay for it. It's less than 0.35% of annual government income and for that it protects against:
Nuclear attack
Conventional attack
Political bullying
Some types of political pressure
Allies being attacked
Maintains strength of NATO
Military Credability
National Security
Maintains defense and security of Europe
Contributes towards current global stability through MAD.
The 'spend it on healthcare' augument is moot since its also 1.4% of the NHS buget or <0.75% of the overall annual healthcare buget.
It's not supposed to defend against terror, it's supposed to defend against nuclear agression and everything listed above. Russia is the primary potential agressor, smaller nations such as Iran and N.Korea are developing their own weapons and those guys arn't stable or sensible nations.
Your tin foil hat shines radiantly when you mention 'super hacking' and 'drones'.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
Disarmorment is a noble goal but perhaps one for the future. For now, it's stupid and naive. It is better to maintain the satus quo. I'll remind everyone that if we disarm, the only nuclear capable country in Europe would be France.
I'll also say, nukes have never hurt anyone, other than the two times they were used in Japan. More people have died via conventional weapons since 1945 than from nukes.
Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia in good faith, look where it got them.
(edited 8 years ago)
People in the upper echelons of society are heavily invested in British defense. Don't believe everything you read. My opinion is that the cost is astronomical. It's going to be a decent chunk of our national debt for some time to come and America has enough for everyone. Next to the American cache Trident is a laughing stock. We don't need it. If the Americans want missiles stashed over here in Europe then let them pay for it. I simply don't believe that Russia or China are a military threat to us. We may argue over some fairly major issues but there is never going to be a nuclear war between East and West. The US will continue to poke the bear and it will continue to ignore it like a petulant child.
Original post by Pegasus2
Really? REALLY? Please, be better informed before posting complete rubbish. Also another person who fails to understand their purpose.
It's completely independent. The delivery system, that's rocket motor and guidance is US by design and production only, that's all. Warhead, detonator, detonation mechanism, launch systems and electronics are all UK. Unlike America, they can be fired by the sub's commander without auth from the Government.
People do care, its called MAD for a reason, the offensive country would face the same destruction it caused. This is the whole core idea of the weapon, that it is never fired. The attacker knows they will face the same destruction, as attack is suicidal. Hence deterent. If you have to use it, it's whole purpose as a weapon has already failed.
It's unfair and unwise to rely on the US for everything. They may have a political change or be unwilling to help. Europe is also a seperate continent and needs it's own set, despite the US having them.
It's actually very, very, very cheap for the benefits it gives. ~£1.6 bil a year is nothing and thats for new subs as well! You'd be stupid not to pay for it. It's less than 0.35% of annual government income and for that it protects against:
Nuclear attack
Conventional attack
Political bullying
Some types of political pressure
Allies being attacked
Maintains strength of NATO
Military Credability
National Security
Maintains defense and security of Europe
Contributes towards current global stability through MAD.
The 'spend it on healthcare' augument is moot since its also 1.4% of the NHS buget or <0.75% of the overall annual healthcare buget.
It's not supposed to defend against terror, it's supposed to defend against nuclear agression and everything listed above. Russia is the primary potential agressor, smaller nations such as Iran and N.Korea are developing their own weapons and those guys arn't stable or sensible nations.
Your tin foil hat shines radiantly when you mention 'super hacking' and 'drones'.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
Disarmament is a noble goal but perhaps one for the future. For now, it's stupid and naive. It is better to maintain the satus quo. I'll remind everyone that if we disarm, the only nuclear capable country in Europe would be France.
I'll also say, nukes have never hurt anyone, other than the two times they were used in Japan. More people have died via conventional weapons since 1945 than from nukes.
Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia in good faith, look where it got them.
It's completely independent. The delivery system, that's rocket motor and guidance is US by design and production only, that's all. Warhead, detonator, detonation mechanism, launch systems and electronics are all UK. Unlike America, they can be fired by the sub's commander without auth from the Government.
People do care, its called MAD for a reason, the offensive country would face the same destruction it caused. This is the whole core idea of the weapon, that it is never fired. The attacker knows they will face the same destruction, as attack is suicidal. Hence deterent. If you have to use it, it's whole purpose as a weapon has already failed.
It's unfair and unwise to rely on the US for everything. They may have a political change or be unwilling to help. Europe is also a seperate continent and needs it's own set, despite the US having them.
It's actually very, very, very cheap for the benefits it gives. ~£1.6 bil a year is nothing and thats for new subs as well! You'd be stupid not to pay for it. It's less than 0.35% of annual government income and for that it protects against:
Nuclear attack
Conventional attack
Political bullying
Some types of political pressure
Allies being attacked
Maintains strength of NATO
Military Credability
National Security
Maintains defense and security of Europe
Contributes towards current global stability through MAD.
The 'spend it on healthcare' augument is moot since its also 1.4% of the NHS buget or <0.75% of the overall annual healthcare buget.
It's not supposed to defend against terror, it's supposed to defend against nuclear agression and everything listed above. Russia is the primary potential agressor, smaller nations such as Iran and N.Korea are developing their own weapons and those guys arn't stable or sensible nations.
Your tin foil hat shines radiantly when you mention 'super hacking' and 'drones'.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
Disarmament is a noble goal but perhaps one for the future. For now, it's stupid and naive. It is better to maintain the satus quo. I'll remind everyone that if we disarm, the only nuclear capable country in Europe would be France.
I'll also say, nukes have never hurt anyone, other than the two times they were used in Japan. More people have died via conventional weapons since 1945 than from nukes.
Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia in good faith, look where it got them.
Government voted for £100bn renewal so make that more like 30% of annual income. Still worth it?
Original post by DystopiaisReal
Also, just from a social perspective, when there are so many problems in the world, why are we discussing nukes when there are still people without access to clean water and with diminished human rights?
The first duty of a Government is the safety of its people. Simple as that. If the people aren't safe there's not much point in them then trying to fix the social ills.
Original post by daveGIS
I simply don't believe that Russia or China are a military threat to us.
Key word: are.
Does your crystal ball tell you exactly what's going to happen for the next 40+yrs? If so, you could make a lot of money out of that.
Original post by daveGIS
Government voted for £100bn renewal so make that more like 30% of annual income. Still worth it?
That's a lifetime cost, not a one time hit, of something that's going to be around for 40ish years.
Original post by daveGIS
People in the upper echelons of society are heavily invested in British defense. Don't believe everything you read. My opinion is that the cost is astronomical. It's going to be a decent chunk of our national debt for some time to come and America has enough for everyone. Next to the American cache Trident is a laughing stock. We don't need it. If the Americans want missiles stashed over here in Europe then let them pay for it. I simply don't believe that Russia or China are a military threat to us. We may argue over some fairly major issues but there is never going to be a nuclear war between East and West. The US will continue to poke the bear and it will continue to ignore it like a petulant child.
Is that why Russia is constantly probing our air and naval defences, modernizing and expanding it's own nuclear forces and leaking stories about new weapons? All after illegally annexing territory of another sovereign state. America is certainly the provocative one being ignored here.
Original post by Drewski
That's a lifetime cost, not a one time hit, of something that's going to be around for 40ish years.
Original post by Drewski
Does your crystal ball tell you exactly what's going to happen for the next 40+yrs? If so, you could make a lot of money out of that.
2) So what? Even if it does it'll be a war between the American and Russian arsenal. Trident is a drop in the ocean and I'll be dead. You say we can't rely on America but I'm afraid if anyone wants to get into a nuclear war with the UK they will have to be prepared to face down America or face destruction. That leaves one country that would completely annihilate us anyway. If we don't have the cash to match the Russian arsenal then trident is completely pointless from the get go. We're bringing a knife to a gunfight. More like a pair of oven mittens tbh. It's worse than useless. It's a liability.
Original post by Drewski
Yes it is, to a certain type of warfare .
You're acting as though because it won't deter a certain type of warfare it is then entirely redundant.
Will it deter then main threats we're facing now? Probably not. Are those threats going to be the same in 30+ years? You can't possibly know. Neither can anyone else. So while you don't know, you retain your insurance policy.
You're acting as though because it won't deter a certain type of warfare it is then entirely redundant.
Will it deter then main threats we're facing now? Probably not. Are those threats going to be the same in 30+ years? You can't possibly know. Neither can anyone else. So while you don't know, you retain your insurance policy.
Insurance always has to be at a realistic price for the risk. Your house might get wiped out by an asteroid and a policy costing 10p that guaranteed protection for 30 years and given that it is a very, very remote risk, that might be a good deal. If the quote was 500 quid, you would hesitate.
The current risk of an all out nuclear retaliation being needed appears slight, so on a simple risk analysis, paying 50bn plus to insure that seems steep. I won't repeat the 30 years bit, as there is a high chance that the purchased system will become obsolete well before then.
The proposed insurance is also very strange, as it is a most unusual type of insurance that actually by purchasing, somewhat increases the risk of the insured incident taking place. We know enough about national nuclear defence systems to suspect that they are accident prone and there is enough history of the cold war to show that nuclear stand offs are highly prone to human misunderstandings and bad decisions. Then there is the huge annual cost of trying to keep up with the suspected enemy systems and of course they are simultaneously engaged in similar struggles.
Then we have the fact that our alleged best friends, the US, have already fully insured us against this remote possibility, albeit, we have no guarantee they will always be our friends, although if we are nervous about that, it's quite hard to understand then why the policy relies totally on them supplying the technology either way.
Finally, all this is happening against a background where the national finances are so dire that the NHS is about to sack thousands of nurses, we cannot afford social care for the elderly and sick and we have cut the conventional military to the bone.
A rational person might conclude that these facts indicate that there must be a narrow clique of self interested people, like weapons manufacturers, who have succeeded in controlling and manipulating politicians and civil servants to push for this, because it makes no sense at all that we are doing it, unless something like that is happening.
When you read back into the history, the decisions about our nuclear weapons were generally taken in secret and the public were told many lies. Looks like the latter is still going on.
We should keep it incase Donald Trump becomes president of the USA, he doesn't know what the nuclear triad is and will probably bomb Agrabah.
In all seriousness though, we don't need nuclear weaponry, but some defense is completely necessary in a world riddled with terror. We shouldn't waste money on things like this that can go to education or the economy, it has the capability to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of (mostly) innocent people.
In all seriousness though, we don't need nuclear weaponry, but some defense is completely necessary in a world riddled with terror. We shouldn't waste money on things like this that can go to education or the economy, it has the capability to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of (mostly) innocent people.
Original post by Sephiroth
Next he'll be advocating sending our troops into battle without bullets.
To be fair, I bet Corbyn touches himself at night at the thought of thousands of British troops without weapons running into Kalashnikov gunfire from an Islamist/Soviet Red Army/IRA tag team.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- London Overground's new names revealed
- Do I change my name?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- Rishi Sunak working towards general election in 'second half of the year'
- goldies poll friends (2 votes)
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Classical Music
- TSR Community Awards 2023 - VOTING NOW CLOSED!
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Landmarks
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Kallisto's Monday Question: Great Personalities
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
- Which phrase best sums up creating content on TSR?
- Gcse English Literature and Language
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
