Nuclar weapons Debate

Watch
jonathanemptage
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I have seen People By AWE (atomic weapons establishment) protesting ban the bomb and such slogans. but the question is don't we need trident as a matter of national security.

Of course nobody wants a nuclear war and having the capability to respond to a nuclear strike should keep us a little safe from other nuclear armed and capable country's like Russia and emerging threats such as Iran (not so sure they are developing WMD's) and North Korea (I know they are).

Having the knowledge that we can and will respond should act a a deterrent shouldn't it.

What do you think?
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Status quo all the way. I believe we should keep trident. It gives us a certain defence against conventional threats and other nations. No matter how unstable the world becomes it ensures a certain level of security.

Personally I doubt we will ever see global disarmament. Best we can hope for is a retreat from weapons on hair trigger.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by jonathanemptage)
I have seen People By AWE (atomic weapons establishment) protesting ban the bomb and such slogans. but the question is don't we need trident as a matter of national security.

Of course nobody wants a nuclear war and having the capability to respond to a nuclear strike should keep us a little safe from other nuclear armed and capable country's like Russia and emerging threats such as Iran (not so sure they are developing WMD's) and North Korea (I know they are).

Having the knowledge that we can and will respond should act a a deterrent shouldn't it.

What do you think?
Agreed.

Sadly nuclear weapons have been one of the main reasons for maintaining peace in Europe post WW2.

The deterrent needs replacing and maintaining no matter how controversial it is.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
At a cost of only around £3bn per year, i think that trident is great value for money.
0
reply
Torum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by jonathanemptage)
I have seen People By AWE (atomic weapons establishment) protesting ban the bomb and such slogans. but the question is don't we need trident as a matter of national security.

Of course nobody wants a nuclear war and having the capability to respond to a nuclear strike should keep us a little safe from other nuclear armed and capable country's like Russia and emerging threats such as Iran (not so sure they are developing WMD's) and North Korea (I know they are).

Having the knowledge that we can and will respond should act a a deterrent shouldn't it.

What do you think?
I disagree, I could go on about the environment and money but:

1. It's obsolete
2. If we ever use it it'll be too late.
3. Even as a deterrent, does it really work, who actually wants to invade/attack the UK?
4. Are we even on the radar of other nuclear equipped countries?
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
I'm going to second what aj12 said, until they're redundant we may as well keep them. The funny thing is that even the guardian seems to want us to keep them. As rakas said, it's only a few be a year (I thought it was 2, not 3) and the cost of removing trident will easily run into the tens of billions; decommissioning nuclear equipment is far from cheap, then somewhat more tenuously there is a lot of research that would have to be cancelled e, apparently, which represents a large loss, then there are expensive contracts with expensive exit clauses. All in all, the money to decommission it now would be enough to reach the new decommissioning date, also, we don't really have the money to spare to do it now, and there is no real harm (that I know of) to possessing a nuclear deterrent

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
VladThe1mpaler
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Torum)
I disagree, I could go on about the environment and money but:

1. It's obsolete
2. If we ever use it it'll be too late.
3. Even as a deterrent, does it really work, who actually wants to invade/attack the UK?
4. Are we even on the radar of other nuclear equipped countries?
Totally agree.

Even if we were in a situation where there was a threat which required the consideration of using trident, what kind of government could justify the killing of millions of people? Not to mention the after-effects of the radiation on people and the environment. The UK would be guilty of crimes against humanity if Trident were ever used.

It's hilarious that people think Russia's supposed "threat" to the UK is one which requires us to be in the possession of nuclear weapons.

EDIT: I also think people on here are forgetting the cost of renewing Trident. It may only be a few billion a year to keep running, but the cost to renew runs into hundreds of billions.
0
reply
Doctor_Einstein
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Torum)
I disagree, I could go on about the environment and money but:

1. It's obsolete
2. If we ever use it it'll be too late.
3. Even as a deterrent, does it really work, who actually wants to invade/attack the UK?
4. Are we even on the radar of other nuclear equipped countries?
Yes it is a potential future deterrent. Whether anyone wants to attack the UK at the present time is irrelevant and this sort of short term thinking could potentially lead to the collapse of the British empire.

Suppose North Korea decides they want to control the UK after the UK disarms. They could bomb a small city and threaten to bomb more cities if the UK does not surrender. If however you have your own weapons, then this is no longer a feasible play. Do you really think your allies will protect you if you choose to disarm? You do so at your own risk.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
It's hilarious that people think Russia's supposed "threat" to the UK is one which requires us to be in the possession of nuclear weapons.
While it's true Russia isn't a threat to this country, that is only true because of nuclear weapons.
1
reply
conj96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by jonathanemptage)
I have seen People By AWE (atomic weapons establishment) protesting ban the bomb and such slogans. but the question is don't we need trident as a matter of national security.

Of course nobody wants a nuclear war and having the capability to respond to a nuclear strike should keep us a little safe from other nuclear armed and capable country's like Russia and emerging threats such as Iran (not so sure they are developing WMD's) and North Korea (I know they are).

Having the knowledge that we can and will respond should act a a deterrent shouldn't it.

What do you think?
We could do that lovely thing were we all sit in a circle, hold hands and agree to all surrender our nuclear weapons. However, **** don't go down like that bro. Someone is bound to keep one, and then everyone else is at a disadvantage.
1
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Torum)
I disagree, I could go on about the environment and money but:

1. It's obsolete
2. If we ever use it it'll be too late.
3. Even as a deterrent, does it really work, who actually wants to invade/attack the UK?
4. Are we even on the radar of other nuclear equipped countries?
How is it obsolete?

The point of a deterrent is that you don't use it. It's mere presence deters attack, that is its purpose. If nuclear deterrence works there won't ever be a time to use the weapon.

We can't predict where the next threat will come from. Having nuclear weapons gives us a degree of security in a very, very uncertain world.

Of course we are. By being a prominent country in the world we are automatically on the radar of other nuclear countries. The Russians clearly view us as enough of a concern to be constantly flying their bombers and fighters into our airspace.
2
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
ive always felt that nukes were a bit of a paper tiger kind of threat or a giant game of chicken.

Yes lost of people have them but only the Americans have ever used them against a target (civilian no less) in a wartime situation.

The idea of a nuke is that its a WMD - so if say Russia launches it nukes against say the UK, then the UK fires back and both sides get reduced to the stone age. And this is true for all countries, even if you fired a nuke at a country that doesnt have them (my country of Ireland for instance) then that countries allies are going to send a nuclear winter right back at you and reduce your populace to the level of an amoeba
0
reply
Asurat
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
It's The Tragedy of the Commons and no matter what the best answer is always to keep a nuclear stockpile since Britian's enemies can not guarantee that they would disarm also.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by silverbolt)
ive always felt that nukes were a bit of a paper tiger kind of threat or a giant game of chicken.

Yes lost of people have them but only the Americans have ever used them against a target (civilian no less) in a wartime situation.

The idea of a nuke is that its a WMD - so if say Russia launches it nukes against say the UK, then the UK fires back and both sides get reduced to the stone age. And this is true for all countries, even if you fired a nuke at a country that doesnt have them (my country of Ireland for instance) then that countries allies are going to send a nuclear winter right back at you and reduce your populace to the level of an amoeba
Not quite true. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union an awFul lot of soviet nuclear doctrine came the way if the west. There were only three NATO nations that the soviets hasn't considered using tactical nukes on. The three NATO states that possessed strategic nukes.
0
reply
VladThe1mpaler
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Observatory)
While it's true Russia isn't a threat to this country, that is only true because of nuclear weapons.
Rubbish. The days of imperialism are gone so what possible reason would Russia have to "invade" or "attack" the UK?
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
We need to maintain some form of nuclear deterrent. The fact is, we don't know where the next threat to UK security is going to come from and the whole point of a deterrent is that it deters attack but is never used.

We may not be under that sort of threat right now but we may or may not be in the future. We don't know, that's why we should keep a nuclear deterrent.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
Rubbish. The days of imperialism are gone so what possible reason would Russia have to "invade" or "attack" the UK?
Russia annexed a part of another country just this year.

You are right that countries invading one another to take their land is less common now than in previous times, as might be world wars. This trend seems to have begun around August 6 1945. Coincidence?
1
reply
Pseudocode
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Observatory)
Russia annexed a part of another country just this year.

You are right that countries invading one another to take their land is less common now than in previous times, as might be world wars. This trend seems to have begun around August 6 1945. Coincidence?
100% spot on.
0
reply
VladThe1mpaler
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Observatory)
Russia annexed a part of another country just this year.

You are right that countries invading one another to take their land is less common now than in previous times, as might be world wars. This trend seems to have begun around August 6 1945. Coincidence?
The situation in Ukraine is completely different. This wasn't just Russia randomly invading a part of a country, it was them taking advantage of a situation which would benefit them. I see no benefit to Russia invading or attacking the UK.

The final collapse of (mainly British) colonial empires in the period post-WWII was what has led to the ending of imperialism. But colonialism was dying out slowly before this, probably mainly due to economic factors.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
Advice to the non-nuclear adherents:

Buy a house and then don't take out any buildings, contents or legal insurance. Let's face it, there will never be a fire because you are so careful with your property and you don't own anything of value. Plus, you can always rely on your friends to bail you out.

What's that? The surveyors didn't have the foresight to know that fracking would cause subsidence? You mean to tell me they had never even heard of fracking ten years ago?

Flooding, what flooding? Climate change - pah!

Damned postman claiming damages for the roof porch roof that collapsed on him under the weight of all that snow.

Oh and then there's the little problem of the planning application for a new airport runway and flight corridors over your new house which went in 6 months after you exchanged contracts.

And those new neighbours who moved in when your old neighbours sold up, are absolute *******s with the all night parties they throw and general social nuisance they cause.

Oh well, **** happens.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (29)
5.33%
Uncertainty around my education (63)
11.58%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (65)
11.95%
Lack of purpose or motivation (71)
13.05%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (30)
5.51%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (25)
4.6%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (57)
10.48%
Financial worries (34)
6.25%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (21)
3.86%
Exposure to negative news/social media (34)
6.25%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (15)
2.76%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (55)
10.11%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (45)
8.27%

Watched Threads

View All