Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Corbyn really is making a massive shambles of this

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yay lets spend loads of money on nuclear weapons to make ourselves feel all big and important while at the same time lecturing other countries about how awful nuclear weapons are!!

    Above else, what a catastrophic waste of money for a **** measuring contest.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yay lets spend loads of money on nuclear weapons to make ourselves feel all big and important while at the same time lecturing other countries about how awful nuclear weapons are!!

    Above else, what a catastrophic waste of money for a **** measuring contest.
    The worse thing is then sending troops to a conventional war without enough equipment.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I would suggest people read Julian Lewis' speech when Hansard for this debate is available.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Godsiff did a great job of mixing up permanent membership of the UNSC and sitting on it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Diane Abbott's latest offering on nuclear weapons - "boys demonstrating how boyish they are". Good to see that it's not just racist remarks that she confines herself to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand those who support unilateral nuclear disarmament.

    The idea that countries like Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea would want to emulate us is just so far removed from reality.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    I don't understand those who support unilateral nuclear disarmament.

    The idea that countries like Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea would want to emulate us is just so far removed from reality.
    I don't see how a non-nuclear armed Britain will provoke Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea to invade. Especially if there is some investment in defence elsewhere.

    It's also useless against ISIS and internal terrorism.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Interesting yougov poll suggesting that 73% of Brits belive that being principled is more important than being electable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Interesting yougov poll suggesting that 73% of Brits belive that being principled is more important than being electable.
    Actually it doesn't, it's unweighted so is not necessarily representative, watch most respondents be leftie graduates who think that willing something to happen and crying if it doesn't makes it happen.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually it doesn't, it's unweighted so is not necessarily representative, watch most respondents be leftie graduates who think that willing something to happen and crying if it doesn't makes it happen.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ummmmm
    "Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Ummmmm
    "Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
    Shows what's wrong with the country, it's as if people aren't aware that winning is needed before governing, and governing is pretty much necessary for enacting the policies. If people think being a principled opposition unable to do anything is better than an elected government only doing half the things they need their heads looking at.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I don't see how a non-nuclear armed Britain will provoke Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea to invade. Especially if there is some investment in defence elsewhere.

    It's also useless against ISIS and internal terrorism.
    But you don't disagree that unilateral nuclear disarmament will in no way contribute towards the end of global nuclear weaponry?

    This new system will see us through until 2050, and who knows what defence challenges we will face then.

    In 1982, would anyone have foreseen the rapid end to the cold war, the gulf wars, the rise of global terrorism etc.? Trident is an absolute guarantee that we won't be invaded regardless of the challenge we face, and there is no amount of conventional weaponry that will replace that. And it's not as though trident and greater investment in defence are mutually exclusive. We should also be bolstering our conventional forces.

    Also, trident does not only prevent outright invasion. It also prevents the prospect of nuclear blackmail and enhances our diplomatic clout.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    I don't understand those who support unilateral nuclear disarmament.

    The idea that countries like Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea would want to emulate us is just so far removed from reality.
    I don't understand how we can lecture the world on how evil nuclear weapons are while enthusiastically building more of our own.

    'Nuclear weapons are awful, except when we have them, then they're brilliant'*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't understand how we can lecture the world on how evil nuclear weapons are while enthusiastically building more of our own.

    'Nuclear weapons are awful, except when we have them, then they're brilliant'*
    Nuclear weapons may be inherently monstrous, but so long as dangerous or unpredictable regimes possess them, they are a necessary countermeasure for dealing with such regimes.

    There is no contradiction really
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    MPs care about local fishermen today makes a change from last month
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't understand how we can lecture the world on how evil nuclear weapons are while enthusiastically building more of our own.

    'Nuclear weapons are awful, except when we have them, then they're brilliant'*
    Except no legal stockpile is growing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    But you don't disagree that unilateral nuclear disarmament will in no way contribute towards the end of global nuclear weaponry?

    This new system will see us through until 2050, and who knows what defence challenges we will face then.

    In 1982, would anyone have foreseen the rapid end to the cold war, the gulf wars, the rise of global terrorism etc.? Trident is an absolute guarantee that we won't be invaded regardless of the challenge we face, and there is no amount of conventional weaponry that will replace that. And it's not as though trident and greater investment in defence are mutually exclusive. We should also be bolstering our conventional forces.

    Also, trident does not only prevent outright invasion. It also prevents the prospect of nuclear blackmail and enhances our diplomatic clout.
    I don't totally agree, if UK were to unilaterally disarm little would change, I agree, then again, had Sanders won the Democrat nomination, I'd argue it would. All we need is a collection of similar nations to disarm, leave it up to the US who probably won't shift anyway. Some nations disarming is infact, a positive.

    Throughout the history of nuclear weapons, and the Cold War, much could have been prevented through mutual disarming. The US' obsession with nuclear power and defeating communism dragged out the Cold War. Misguided nuclear obsession caused the unnecessary destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Building an ever increasing nuclear arsenal brings danger, not safety.

    I don't think it is a barrier to invasion, especially when the UK is positioned among allies. If we lost our Trident, would North Korea invade the UK?

    Nuclear blackmail and diplomatic clout are also exaggerated. Trident can never be used, thus its of no diplomatic value, give us a decent trade deal China or we'll nuke you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I don't totally agree, if UK were to unilaterally disarm little would change, I agree, then again, had Sanders won the Democrat nomination, I'd argue it would. All we need is a collection of similar nations to disarm, leave it up to the US who probably won't shift anyway. Some nations disarming is infact, a positive.

    Throughout the history of nuclear weapons, and the Cold War, much could have been prevented through mutual disarming. The US' obsession with nuclear power and defeating communism dragged out the Cold War. Misguided nuclear obsession caused the unnecessary destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Building an ever increasing nuclear arsenal brings danger, not safety.

    I don't think it is a barrier to invasion, especially when the UK is positioned among allies. If we lost our Trident, would North Korea invade the UK?

    Nuclear blackmail and diplomatic clout are also exaggerated. Trident can never be used, thus its of no diplomatic value, give us a decent trade deal China or we'll nuke you?
    The problem is that if a country unilaterally disarms, particularly the US, then it loses leverage in convincing other nuclear states to do the same. Putin might agree to reducing the nuclear stockpile if the US do. But he's not going to do it as a reaction to unilateral disarmament. He would see that as an opportunity to reaffirm Russian dominance and national pride in that area.

    I have nothing against mutual reduction of nuclear stockpiles, and indeed I believe unilateral disarmament to be anathema to that, as it makes it all the more unlikely that non-western nuclear states will reduce their stockpiles. Russia and China deal in national interest and projection of power, not ideals of peace or taxpayer cost.

    We don't know what threats we will be exposed to over the next decades. But we know trident is an absolute deterrent for a relatively limited cost. That seems a sound cost-benefit investment.

    It is the threat of trident that gives us clout. It does not need to be a likely threat to induce fear and wariness, the mere prospect suffices I would suggest. Hence why every government, left or right, dating back to Attlee, has supported it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nice to see Robertson having difficulty with 40+35x2

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.