Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

BREAKING - MPs vote to renew Trident weapons system Watch

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    It's a shame that we can afford a nuclear defense system but we can't invest in desperately needed housing and supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
    The second is somewhat subjective however i agree with more housing. Unfortunately, neither Labour nor the Tories seem especially ambitious there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It's being used as we speak. Hence the word "deterrence".

    And modern day terrorism is merely one type of threat to a nation. There are others. Hence why there are different weapon systems and different branches of the armed forces.
    Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons , i wounder who they're doing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Every day when I turn on the news, it is clear why we need nuclear weapons. There is the threat of terrorist organisations, many countries at war or on the verge of war. North Korea and Russia have nuclear weapons and could use them at any time. We need a deterrent to prevent invasion from other countries. I hate the military and war and I wish Nagasaki and Hiroshima never happened. I hope we never have to use our bombs, but while our nation is under threat, we need a way to protect ourselves. One day, we may be in a position to get rid of trident, but the time is not now.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Might as well have them just to be safe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The second is somewhat subjective however i agree with more housing. Unfortunately, neither Labour nor the Tories seem especially ambitious there.
    But they are ambitious about renewing nuclear weapons hence tonight's thumping majority to renew trident.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    It's a figure that is a few percentage points higher than the government's £179bn estimate which is almost certainly an underestimate.
    And included in that wild estimate are figures for the costs of, amongst other things, the wages and housing of the RN and RM personnel. Do you think that disappears if we don't have the deterrence?

    It includes the costs of ancillary equipment that's needed to operate the subs and bases. Equipment that would still be needed regardless of whether they were used on those particular subs or those particular bases. So you think those costs disappear if we don't have these 4 subs?

    The only capital cost we should realistically look at is the ~£31bn for replacing the subs. And that spread over their lifetime is a pittance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons , i wounder who they're doing.
    Japan is well within the range of China's nuclear weapons & quite possibly North Korea's now too. They don't need them though as the USA would almost certainly respond for them if they were attacked.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Tell me , when we did we last nuclear weapons ?
    Speaking English would help...

    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons , i wounder who they're doing.
    They're covered by the US' defence, so rather well, hence them not being attacked by NK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Powersymphonia)
    Every day when I turn on the news, it is clear why we need nuclear weapons. There is the threat of terrorist organisations, many countries at war or on the verge of war. North Korea and Russia have nuclear weapons and could use them at any time. We need a deterrent to prevent invasion from other countries. I hate the military and war and I wish Nagasaki and Hiroshima never happened. I hope we never have to use our bombs, but while our nation is under threat, we need a way to protect ourselves. One day, we may be in a position to get rid of trident, but the time is not now.
    The important term here is could , the former USSR had a nuclear weapons , this does not mean that they used them.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    'Although Labour MPs were given a free vote, many used the occasion to attack Mr Corbyn, who is a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons. The BBC understands that 60% of Labour's MPs voted in favour of Trident renewal.'

    Sounds about right :lol:
    Good. Is ******* Corbyn still leader.....

    Needed to renew it glad the majority voted in favour.

    :top:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    The important term here is could , the former USSR had a nuclear weapons , this does not mean that they used them.
    They didn't because we also had them. Using them on us would have meant them being used on them.

    Hence deterrence. Again.

    Look that word up is you're having trouble.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons , i wounder who they're doing.
    Living under an American provided nuclear umbrella.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons , i wounder who they're doing.
    Slight misconception about Japan hating nukes here.

    Japan for the last few decades has had stockpiles of enriched Uranium (for no real purpose) and has a manufactured and tested missile system.

    While Japan technically has no nuclear weapons, the UN estimates that Japan could have a deployable nuclear weapon within 90 days (bear in mind that relations in the lead up to war tend to sour for years). .
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And included in that wild estimate are figures for the costs of, amongst other things, the wages and housing of the RN and RM personnel. Do you think that disappears if we don't have the deterrence?

    It includes the costs of ancillary equipment that's needed to operate the subs and bases. Equipment that would still be needed regardless of whether they were used on those particular subs or those particular bases. So you think those costs disappear if we don't have these 4 subs?

    The only capital cost we should realistically look at is the ~£31bn for replacing the subs. And that spread over their lifetime is a pittance.
    You're telling me that £148bn out of that £179bn is essentially for maintenance? That's just nonsense. I'm happy to admit that the £205bn figure may have been capitalised upon by people opposed to this programme but to argue that the true cost of this is just £31bn, particularly given that programmes like these usually run greatly overbudget, is quite difficult to believe. Not that I'd agree with this for a second even if it had a positive economic impact on the UK, supporting a nuclear "deterrent" is absolute nonsense. The risk of initiating a nuclear war through miscalculation, mistakes or terrorism are vastly greater than any risk of an intentional nuclear war.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    The important term here is could , the former USSR had a nuclear weapons , this does not mean that they used them.
    I don't think they will use the weapons. Like us, the other countries which have access to nuclear weapons have them for a deterrent to protect themselves. If we get rid of our weapons, then other countries need to get rid of theirs too, so that it is safe to demilitarise. However, while the other big military powers in the world have weapons, we need them too, so that we remain a big military show of force.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Most countries do not have Nuclear weapons , the UK is an exception alongside 8 other nations which have Nuclear weapons

    Just think of what all that money could of been spent on but nah lets spend it on a defense system which is never used and ill equipped to deal with modern day terrorism.
    It's used everyday actually.
    Key word is deterrent, or mutually assured destruction.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HamzahPatel)
    MPs have backed the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system, voting 472 to 117 in favour in Parliament.

    The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at an estimated cost of £31bn.

    Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

    Labour was split over the issue with many of its MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government.
    They didn't really vote to replace Vanguard, that was done 9 years ago, and anybody in Labour voting against it was betraying their own party and electors, they pledged in their manifesto to replace Vanguard, not to do so is to go against what they were elected on.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    You're telling me that £148bn out of that £179bn is essentially for maintenance?

    The risk of initiating a nuclear war through miscalculation, mistakes or terrorism are vastly greater than any risk of an intentional nuclear war.
    The vast majority of that money goes to things that are, on the surface, ridiculously simple. Again, think of the lifespan of the subs. Think of all the things that go into keeping them running. Each sub has at least 2 full crews. So we're talking roughly 1000 men and women. Let's say the average wage is £40k (which is a very conservative guess given the bonuses on offer to the dolphins, many will be on a lot more). That means each year the wage bill alone is £40,000,000. Multiply that by 40 years.

    You see how quickly that enormous figure actually gets quite small?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HamzahPatel)
    MPs have backed the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system, voting 472 to 117 in favour in Parliament.

    The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at an estimated cost of £31bn.

    Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

    Labour was split over the issue with many of its MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government.
    or y'know we could spend a bit on the NHS ffs
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polka_Specs)
    Most countries do not have Nuclear weapons , the UK is an exception alongside 8 other nations which have Nuclear weapons

    Just think of what all that money could of been spent on but nah lets spend it on a defense system which is never used and ill equipped to deal with modern day terrorism.
    Its called nuclear deterrence - similiar to M.A.D.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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