BREAKING - MPs vote to renew Trident weapons system

Scroll to see replies

Fascinating that we suddenly have a spare £200bn when it comes to nuclear weapons. Shame we can't garner the same response for the genuinely important issues facing modern society.

I'd say that the defence of our country and its people is a "genuinely important issue"

Reply 61

Jammy Duel

Original post by IamJacksContempt

Russia aren't as stupid as you're making them out to be .

I e. You admit that it works

Well done for making our job as easy as pointing out your acceptance.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 62

Plagioclase

Original post by plasmaman

I'd say that the defence of our country and its people is a "genuinely important issue"

Except possessing nuclear warheads isn't defending anybody, it just increases the world's vulnerability to an accidentally triggered nuclear war which is pretty much the only way a nuclear war could start.

Reply 63

IamJacksContempt

Original post by Jammy Duel

I e. You admit that it works

Well done for making our job as easy as pointing out your acceptance.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Read between the lines. My point was Russia aren't that stupid to start a fight with Britain for no reason, Irregardless of MAD.

Reply 64

IamJacksContempt

A common theme I notice with leave voters/Trident supports.

Delusions of grandeur.

Reply 65

Jammy Duel

Original post by IamJacksContempt

Read between the lines. My point was Russia aren't that stupid to start a fight with Britain for no reason, Irregardless of MAD.

Which is why they're at war in Ukraine for "no reason"

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 66

Drewski

Original post by Plagioclase

I get that you probably think anybody in the armed forces is only slightly removed intellectually from bacteria, but the fact that these things have existed for 70 years and that hasn't happened is a pretty decent indication that such mistakes aren't that likely.

Reply 67

IamJacksContempt

Original post by Jammy Duel

Which is why they're at war in Ukraine for "no reason"

Posted from TSR Mobile

Genuinely don't know if you're trolling or you're that ignorant of history and international politics.

You should just leave this thread if you're going to make idiotic comparisons like that.

It's like saying, Israel are at war with Palestine.. They might come after Britain next!

Reply 68

Plagioclase

Original post by Drewski

Shame that this is completely contradictory to what I've heard every expert on the matter say, e.g at the seminar series I attended on this exact issue at the Future of Humanity institute. There have been some incredibly close shaves in the past and the logic that "Catastrophe X hasn't happened yet so Catastrophe X is unlikely" doesn't work because it's a classic example of anthropic bias.

Reply 69

SummerStrawberry

The Prisoner's Dilemma, perhaps the best known example of game theory, can be adapted to this sort of situation.The UK and country 'x' have two options: to have a nuclear programme, or not to have one. We could visualise this in a two-way table like so:

If both countries opt for disarmament, there is no chance of any nuclear war; this is the best outcome by far, but relies on the countries agreeing to disarmament.

If one country opts for disarmament, and the other to have a nuclear programme, the country opting for disarmament is at a stark disadvantage.

If both countries opt to have a nuclear programme, both countries are equal.

The following table uses colour-coded numbers to represent the countries' level of risk; the higher the number, the higher the risk to that country.

What both countries realise is that the best option is for total disarmament. However, they are not in control of each other's nuclear programmes, only their own, so must do the best that they can to protect their country. If the the UK opts to keep its programme, and country 'x' opts to remove its programme, country 'x' puts itself in a situation of much higher risk, and vice versa.

To minimise risk to themselves, the logical course of action - assuming an inability to make any agreement with the other country - a country should keep its nuclear programme. More risk is involved than if both countries opted for disarmament, but less than if the other country opted to keep is programme contrarily.

The strategy of the deterrent is stalemate. It only takes one false alarm to break it, thereby plunging the world into a nuclear war. Clearly the world as a whole needs to move towards disarmament, but would you want your last line of defence to be removed first?