Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Following recent comments from David Cameron that we need trident to protect us from rogue regimes like North Korea I think the debate is over.

    There is no logical argument for keeping trident. Do you honestly think that over 100 countries in the world without sophisticated nuclear launch systems like trident are at risk? if so should we be encouraging all nations to adopt such countermeasures let's get on the phone to Iran tomorrow and tell them that without trident their national security is at risk.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Following recent comments from David Cameron that we need trident to protect us from rogue regimes like North Korea I think the debate is over.
    There
    There is no logical argument for keeping trident. Do you honestly think that over 100 countries in the world without sophisticated nuclear launch systems like trident are at risk? if so should we be encouraging all nations to adopt such countermeasures let's get on the phone to Iran tomorrow and tell them that without trident their national security is at risk.
    There's lots of logical reasons for keeping trident. There's lots if emotional reasons fir getting rid of it. In this case logic should trump emotion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Given the sheer amount of nuclear proliferation going on it would be utter insanity to scrap our deterrent
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    if so should we be encouraging all nations to adopt such countermeasures let's get on the phone to Iran tomorrow and tell them that without trident their national security is at risk.
    This is entirely true, and obviously why they are investing so much money into building nuclear weapons. The problem is that Iran's national security being at risk is a good thing!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Considering events could quickly change the worlds current Political Structure in a matter of days I'd say its a good thing to retain Trident. We can't predict the future and who may come to power in other nuclear nations, we can't predict what these people will do so its better to have the deterrent than not in the case of those events.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Following recent comments from David Cameron that we need trident to protect us from rogue regimes like North Korea I think the debate is over.

    There is no logical argument for keeping trident. Do you honestly think that over 100 countries in the world without sophisticated nuclear launch systems like trident are at risk? if so should we be encouraging all nations to adopt such countermeasures let's get on the phone to Iran tomorrow and tell them that without trident their national security is at risk.
    There is every logical argument for keeping trident. Just look at North Korea. Would you want to live in a world where they have Nuclear Weapons and we don't?

    As Margaret Thatcher argued. A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable for us all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Following recent comments from David Cameron that we need trident to protect us from rogue regimes like North Korea I think the debate is over.

    There is no logical argument for keeping trident. Do you honestly think that over 100 countries in the world without sophisticated nuclear launch systems like trident are at risk? if so should we be encouraging all nations to adopt such countermeasures let's get on the phone to Iran tomorrow and tell them that without trident their national security is at risk.
    We do not live in a stable world. This is the first time in human history that most of the globe has had the power to blow up another country at the push of a button. It is also the first time that we have had total global communication in an instant, and a major mixing of cultures.

    The latter is why so many people think we have entered a peaceful era, but the truth is that the situation is totally unpredictable, because nothing in history covers it. Only eighty years ago a bad economic situation (and other factors) made a totally developed country go insane and attempt to start a new empire. The interim seventy years of 'peace' are nothing on the human timeline.

    Getting rid of Trident is insane.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are also questions about switching to other alternatives; however, after reading the 2006 white paper on Trident, I believe it's the best option. For those who haven't read it, they considered nuclear tipped cruise missiles, land-based silos, nuclear capable surface warships and nuclear capable aircraft.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    There are also questions about switching to other alternatives; however, after reading the 2006 white paper on Trident, I believe it's the best option. For those who haven't read it, they considered nuclear tipped cruise missiles, land-based silos, nuclear capable surface warships and nuclear capable aircraft.

    The only other suitable option there is silo. But silo launched ICBMs have to have a different political outlook. It means that a government can't sit a nuclear strike out. It has to launch as soon as an inbound attack.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Given the sheer amount of nuclear proliferation going on it would be utter insanity to scrap our deterrent
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Considering events could quickly change the worlds current Political Structure in a matter of days I'd say its a good thing to retain Trident. We can't predict the future and who may come to power in other nuclear nations, we can't predict what these people will do so its better to have the deterrent than not in the case of those events.
    (Original post by Octohedral)
    We do not live in a stable world. This is the first time in human history that most of the globe has had the power to blow up another country at the push of a button. It is also the first time that we have had total global communication in an instant, and a major mixing of cultures.

    The latter is why so many people think we have entered a peaceful era, but the truth is that the situation is totally unpredictable, because nothing in history covers it. Only eighty years ago a bad economic situation (and other factors) made a totally developed country go insane and attempt to start a new empire. The interim seventy years of 'peace' are nothing on the human timeline.

    Getting rid of Trident is insane.
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    There is every logical argument for keeping trident. Just look at North Korea. Would you want to live in a world where they have Nuclear Weapons and we don't?

    As Margaret Thatcher argued. A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable for us all.

    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?
    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?
    Clearly there is currently no imminent threat to any country. A holiday will be fine.

    However, if there were a threat, as I believe is quite possible in the future, I highly doubt we would get enough warning to assemble a nuclear submarine. We are by no means a superpower, granted, but our economy, language, history and 'special relationship' with America put us firmly on the world stage.

    I am certainly not saying that I think there will be a nuclear war in the near future, simply that the situation is unpredictable enough to make voluntarily getting rid of our nuclear weapons extremely short-sighted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octohedral)
    Clearly there is currently no imminent threat to any country. A holiday will be fine.

    However, if there were a threat, as I believe is quite possible in the future, I highly doubt we would get enough warning to assemble a nuclear submarine. We are by no means a superpower, granted, but our economy, language, history and 'special relationship' with America put us firmly on the world stage.

    I am certainly not saying that I think there will be a nuclear war in the near future, simply that the situation is unpredictable enough to make voluntarily getting rid of our nuclear weapons extremely short-sighted.
    So you are suggesting that because we speak English we will be targeted by a rogue nuclear state? How do you know so much about the motives behind these future rogue nuclear states?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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?
    To an extent yes, depending on their position on the world stage some countries are at a higher risk of attack than others . As for your second sentiment that's just stupid. However we should avoid going on holiday if they are about to be invaded by a hostile power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    To an extent yes, depending on their position on the world stage some countries are at a higher risk of attack than others . As for your second sentiment that's just stupid. However we should avoid going on holiday if they are about to be invaded by a hostile power.
    BUT a nuclear strike could be launched at any moment without warming thus we should never go on holiday ever. Imagine this you go to Denmark then BAM North Korea nukes you and you die. This is a very real future reality that could happen.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    BUT a nuclear strike could be launched at any moment without warming thus we should never go on holiday ever. Imagine this you go to Denmark then BAM North Korea nukes you and you die. This is a very real future reality that could happen.
    But it would't be. That's not how International politics works.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    But it would't be. That's not how International politics works.
    You have been implying that if we don't have trident we could be nuked at any moment. If it was so necessary to have one don't you think states like Japan and Germany would have them?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    You have been implying that if we don't have trident we could be nuked at any moment. If it was so necessary to have one don't you think states like Japan and Germany would have them?
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Trident is the best Nuclear option we have available, and to think of scrapping a Nuclear option altogether is madness in the current climate.
    Offline

    3
    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.

    Post Cold War a lot of soviet documentation became available. Funnily enough in Europe there was only France and the UK that hadn't been pre targeted by tactical nuclear strikes at key points. Possibly because the soviets knew that they get the same in kind. Germany, Denmark, holland, Italy and Spain were n't so fortunate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There's lots of logical reasons for keeping trident. There's lots if emotional reasons fir getting rid of it. In this case logic should trump emotion.
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    There is every logical argument for keeping trident.
    May I ask what are these logical reasons? Just out of genuine curiosity.
 
 
 
  • 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

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.