Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Trident debate over? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    May I ask what are these logical reasons? Just out of genuine curiosity.
    Security. It is the ultimate deterrent and to my knowledge nobody with access to a nuclear deterrent has been attacked by a foreign power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No.I said Trident gives us long term security. Were a situation to arise were a hostile power began threatening the UK we would be in a better position with trident than without. Nations like Japan and Germany believe they are safe under the US nuclear deterrent so in some ways do have nuclear weapons.
    Are Japan and Germany stupid? Don't they know that in the long term a situation may arise where the US becomes a hostile power? I believe we should go around the world and start selling countries trident because 1) it will help our economy 2) will make them safer from hostile forces 3) builds friendship.

    Think about it if we sell Iran trident there is no way in hell they will target us we will be their friends and allies diplomacy 101.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Are Japan and Germany stupid? Don't they know that in the long term a situation may arise where the US becomes a hostile power? I believe we should go around the world and start selling countries trident because 1) it will help our economy 2) will make them safer from hostile forces 3) builds friendship.

    Think about it if we sell Iran trident there is no way in hell they will target us we will be their friends and allies diplomacy 101.
    Japan and Germany will NEVER be allowed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons due to a certain incident 70 years ago. That said, the German Military do still have the ability to launch US/NATO controlled weaponry.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Japan and Germany will NEVER be allowed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons due to a certain incident 70 years ago. That said, the German Military do still have the ability to launch US/NATO controlled weaponry.
    So is it unsafe for us to visit those countries because the US could ditch them at anytime and they could become a nuclear target.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Are Japan and Germany stupid? Don't they know that in the long term a situation may arise where the US becomes a hostile power? I believe we should go around the world and start selling countries trident because 1) it will help our economy 2) will make them safer from hostile forces 3) builds friendship.

    Think about it if we sell Iran trident there is no way in hell they will target us we will be their friends and allies
    diplomacy 101.
    Never heard of this thing called 'history', have you?

    Guess who's biggest trading partner was Germany in the run up to WW2? France.
    Who did we give the patents for jet engines to in the late '40s, hoping to keep them on our side? The USSR.
    Who did we sell arms to throughout the 50s? Iran and Iraq.
    Who did the US supply with training and weaponry throughout the 1980s? Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.


    And that all ignores the fact that we can't sell Trident as it's not our design or product. We merely fit our own warheads to US-built missiles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who actually has the range to nuke the UK? The only superpower I can think of is Russia, and if Russia bomb us we're ****ed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    So is it unsafe for us to visit those countries because the US could ditch them at anytime and they could become a nuclear target.
    No. I'd still travel anywhere. I don't know where this holiday thing has started. I look at it along the lines of why should we expect somebody else to pay for our defence. You may have seen in the media that there Americans are getting a little annoyed with Europeans expecting the US tax payer to fund our defence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)
    Who actually has the range to nuke the UK? The only superpower I can think of is Russia, and if Russia bomb us we're ****ed.
    China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...ss_destruction with Iranian missiles increasing their ranges regularly. People need to stop looking at this as a question of what's happening now. The Trident replacement is due to come on line in about 2025, and be operational until about 2060. Who the hell knows what threats we'll be looking at fifty years out? I don't think that after the Boer war the military planners were expecting WW1, WW2, Korea, Cold War et al to be happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...ss_destruction with Iranian missiles increasing their ranges regularly. People need to stop looking at this as a question of what's happening now. The Trident replacement is due to come on line in about 2025, and be operational until about 2060. Who the hell knows what threats we'll be looking at fifty years out? I don't think that after the Boer war the military planners were expecting WW1, WW2, Korea, Cold War et al to be happening.
    Trident would by no means stop china. I'd be seriously surprised if America don't invade Iran within the next fifty years time.

    Think of it this way, ok? The projected initial Trident replacement cost is about £130 bn. £130 bn, invested into education (primarily, I would argue, into improving state secondary education) would be enough to assure a far greater output of skilled workers, higher general levels of education and therefore Britain has a superior socio-economics standing.
    Missiles are a very obnoxious, obvious and expensive deterrent with almost no social benefits. A much greater, socially viable and intelligent solution is to make ourselves as a country too valuable to destroy. We could never bomb an EU country, for example, not only because of military repercussions but also because of the economic repercussions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)
    Trident would by no means stop china. I'd be seriously surprised if America don't invade Iran within the next fifty years time.

    Think of it this way, ok? The projected initial Trident replacement cost is about £130 bn. £130 bn, invested into education (primarily, I would argue, into improving state secondary education) would be enough to assure a far greater output of skilled workers, higher general levels of education and therefore Britain has a superior socio-economics standing.
    Missiles are a very obnoxious, obvious and expensive deterrent with almost no social benefits. A much greater, socially viable and intelligent solution is to make ourselves as a country too valuable to destroy. We could never bomb an EU country, for example, not only because of military repercussions but also because of the economic repercussions.
    You've quoted lifetime cost there, spread over about 50 years. It works out to about £1.5 Billion a year which is peanuts compared to what we spend on welfare, Health, interest payments etc. No country is too valuable to destroy unless you have huge amounts of raw materials which we don't have, and if you look at history passive successful nations tend to be ripe for the picking by hostile nations. Read up on the history of the cold war. The Soviets actually believed they could win a war with limited tactical exchanges.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    So you all agree then that all nations without high level nuclear strike capabilities are at risk? So we should avoid going on holidays to any country which does not have nuclear weapons because they could be targeted by North Korea?
    Technically, and talking in terms of extremes yes. But you (perhaps subconsciously) weigh it up in your head don't you. And I decided it was worth the risk of getting nuked to visit Japan, South Korea and Germany, because they are really good countries to visit. But it's a bit of a silly response to be honest.

    (Original post by FinalMH)
    May I ask what are these logical reasons? Just out of genuine curiosity.
    Strengthens our standing in the world, provides the ultimate deterrent, vital for UK security, just a few of the top of my head.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    Strengthens our standing in the world, provides the ultimate deterrent, vital for UK security, just a few of the top of my head.
    Whether we have trident or not has no effect on our world standing we have other nuclear capabilities. Also we don't need an 'ultimate' deterrent this is the real world not some fantasy in your head where we need to have secret nuclear armed submarines which by the way can easily be found with modern technology.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    1. Whether we have trident or not has no effect on our world standing we have other nuclear capabilities. 2. Also we don't need an 'ultimate' deterrent this is the real world not some fantasy in your head where we need to have secret nuclear armed submarines which 3. by the way can easily be found with modern technology.
    1. You don't necessarily know that, though I agree in some respects.
    2. It's precisely because we're in the real world and not some utopian ideal that we need them, you can't predict what will happen. Why else are other countries so keen to get them?
    3. Complete rubbish. If that was the case then we'd no longer use them. SSBNs are among the most difficult things in the world to locate and follow.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Whether we have trident or not has no effect on our world standing we have other nuclear capabilities. Also we don't need an 'ultimate' deterrent this is the real world not some fantasy in your head where we need to have secret nuclear armed submarines which by the way can easily be found with modern technology.
    can they be found easily? I'd like to see your source for that?

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_V...sion#section_2
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    1. You don't necessarily know that, though I agree in some respects.
    2. It's precisely because we're in the real world and not some utopian ideal that we need them, you can't predict what will happen. Why else are other countries so keen to get them?
    3. Complete rubbish. If that was the case then we'd no longer use them. SSBNs are among the most difficult things in the world to locate and follow.
    Give me a single realistic scenario where trident will save our country from nuclear Armageddon where conventional nuclear weapons do not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Give me a single realistic scenario where trident will save our country from nuclear Armageddon where conventional nuclear weapons do not?

    A re run of a Cold War style scenario.

    I do agree that it would be nice not to have these things, but we can't un invent them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    A re run of a Cold War style scenario.

    I do agree that it would be nice not to have these things, but we can't un invent them.
    For most of the cold war we didn't have a trident like device... so that kind of proves the opposite that do not need it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Give me a single realistic scenario where trident will save our country from nuclear Armageddon where conventional nuclear weapons do not?
    I think you meant conventional weapons, rather than 'conventional nuclear weapons'...? I'm going to answer assuming that you did.

    Trident is more than just a weapon, it is an insurance policy. It is a tool with which we can say "bring this terror to us and we will bring it back to you just as hard, just as fast". The thing every bully fears? Strength being used against them.
    Imagine a situation where we had no nuclear weapons. All it takes is one country to take a dislike to us for whatever reason - most likely ideological or religious - and to decide that if our leaders weren't in place that it would enjoy the chaos and be able to take advantage of the disarray and make a move elsewhere.

    While I have no desire to see nuclear war ever occur, I cannot say for certainty that the eventuality will never arise. Those types of weapons are abhorrent, but you cannot uninvent them - the genie is out of the bottle. As long as it is that way, until we can find a way to make a nuclear weapon completely redundant, we should be similarly armed.

    If, on the other hand, you can accurately predict every human occurance over the next 40-50years and say for certain no country will ever go mental, that no dictator will need to reined in, then fine.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    For most of the cold war we didn't have a trident like device... so that kind of proves the opposite that do not need it.
    No, but we had other nuclear deterrents so that completely negates your argument. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War we had a nuclear detterent - and usually more than one version.
    We developed Trident as the most cost-effective and most secure form.

    Before Trident we had Polaris, which was basically identical - a submarine-launched ballistic missile - and before that had an airborne deterrent with the RAF. But that was prohibitively expensive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I think you meant conventional weapons, rather than 'conventional nuclear weapons'...? I'm going to answer assuming that you did.

    Trident is more than just a weapon, it is an insurance policy. It is a tool with which we can say "bring this terror to us and we will bring it back to you just as hard, just as fast". The thing every bully fears? Strength being used against them.
    Imagine a situation where we had no nuclear weapons. All it takes is one country to take a dislike to us for whatever reason - most likely ideological or religious - and to decide that if our leaders weren't in place that it would enjoy the chaos and be able to take advantage of the disarray and make a move elsewhere.

    While I have no desire to see nuclear war ever occur, I cannot say for certainty that the eventuality will never arise. Those types of weapons are abhorrent, but you cannot uninvent them - the genie is out of the bottle. As long as it is that way, until we can find a way to make a nuclear weapon completely redundant, we should be similarly armed.

    If, on the other hand, you can accurately predict every human occurance over the next 40-50years and say for certain no country will ever go mental, that no dictator will need to reined in, then fine.
    Your whole argument is meaningless because rather than assuming what I said is what I meant you assumed i said something else for no apparent reason. You know we have other nuclear weapons right? I am not arguing that was should disarm our entire nuclear arsenal why are you making that assumption are you ignorant?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.