Turn on thread page Beta

Should the UK get rid of its nuclear deterrent (Trident)? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is a big election question. Thoughts?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It only became an election issue on the basis of an effort to sunder SNP/Labour relations. I doubt that many, if any, voters will actually consider it when at the polling booth.

    That being said, I wouldn't get rid of Trident. Why? Perhaps lame logic, but although you can't conceivably prepare for every possible disaster under the sun, the danger of nuclear weapons remains notable. Especially considering the fact that we're to see more nations acquiring them in years to come.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, scrap Trident. We're spending too much money on weapons we're not even planning on using, money which could go to much better use. There's no point in getting arrogant: the UK is a tiny landmass. If someone wants to nuke us we are utterly screwed. No big country is going to be scared off if the tiny UK says 'Ooh we're going to nuke you back!' It's like putting a spiky collar on a Chihuahua - it may be a menacing collar, but at the end of the day it's still a Chihuahua.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    no; a fundamental function of government is to protect its citizens from coercion, be it outside or inside.
    there are countries out there with nukes. therefore, a sensible policy with that in mind is to arm ourselves for our own defence
    I will not have respect for a government that cannot realistically protect me. this is a basic responsibility of a state and if it sacrifices this, then it is illegitimate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katinthehat)
    Yes, scrap Trident. We're spending too much money on weapons we're not even planning on using, money which could go to much better use. There's no point in getting arrogant: the UK is a tiny landmass. If someone wants to nuke us we are utterly screwed. No big country is going to be scared off if the tiny UK says 'Ooh we're going to nuke you back!' It's like putting a spiky collar on a Chihuahua - it may be a menacing collar, but at the end of the day it's still a Chihuahua.
    Poor logic. Also, the current nuclear program only costs 6% of our annual defence budget. That is less than 1.5% of our annual benefits bill.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Use Ukraine as a case study, Got rid of their nukes and Putin **** over them with the Crimea etc. Nukes are a DETERRENT meaning you hope never to use them but they are there just in case.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Scrap them IMO.
    1. If the UK ever comes under attack, NATO will come to our aid.
    2. Warfare is changing, it is more about intelligence and economic sanctions as opposed to out and out aggression,
    For these reasons Trident is now redundant in the modern age of Great Britain

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No, nukes shield the UK from any conventional attack, and provide us with geopolitical freedom for a relatively tiny cost, where in it's absence the UK would be effectively a toy to be fought over by other nuclear powers.

    Also the anti-nuke lobby seems to be constructed more on misguided fear and ignorance rather than sound logic (beyond rather petty money saving, which is pointless since defence spending is 2.2% GDP and constantly being cut further down, and Trident is a mere fraction of the defence budget.
    Weird to fear and hate nukes, seeing as they've done more to keep the peace between major powers than all other good intentions combined.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katinthehat)
    Yes, scrap Trident. We're spending too much money on weapons we're not even planning on using, money which could go to much better use. There's no point in getting arrogant: the UK is a tiny landmass. If someone wants to nuke us we are utterly screwed. No big country is going to be scared off if the tiny UK says 'Ooh we're going to nuke you back!' It's like putting a spiky collar on a Chihuahua - it may be a menacing collar, but at the end of the day it's still a Chihuahua.
    Don't be silly. Aside from the fact that Trident is actually incredibly good value for the power it represents, it does remain an important deterrent to anyone seeking to get physical. Our nuclear weapons may not be able to obliterate an entire country the way America's can, but they could certainly obliterate most of its major cities and make it far too costly for any superpower to even consider doing the same to us.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiseLAD)
    Scrap them IMO.
    1. If the UK ever comes under attack, NATO will come to our aid.
    2. Warfare is changing, it is more about intelligence and economic sanctions as opposed to out and out aggression,
    For these reasons Trident is now redundant in the modern age of Great Britain

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1. Not necessarily. Isolationism has been on the rise for years. Despite our NATO obligations, polls have shown that most Britons would oppose aiding Estonia or Latvia if they are ever attacked by Russia. Who is to say that one day Americans, feeling that we aren't pulling our weight or showing any gratitude, won't oppose aiding Britain if we are ever attacked? In any case, it's never a good idea to be completely dependent on someone else for your survival.
    2. Warfare has changed because the existence of nuclear weapons means it's too dangerous for any country to display too much aggression. If every country scrapped them it wouldn't be long before militarism came back.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Scrap trident and all the nuclear weapons in the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omni Vanitas)
    Scrap trident and all the nuclear weapons in the world.
    Yes and then make peace in the middle east so the international community can come together and sing John Lennon whilst dancing around in a pollution-free meadow of prosperity and peace.




    Meanwhile in the real world, no we shouldn't get rid of trident. It's very cheap, gives us strength and gravitas on the world stage, and there is no way of knowing what will happen in geopolitics in the future.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    1. Not necessarily. Isolationism has been on the rise for years. Despite our NATO obligations, polls have shown that most Britons would oppose aiding Estonia or Latvia if they are ever attacked by Russia. Who is to say that one day Americans, feeling that we aren't pulling our weight or showing any gratitude, won't oppose aiding Britain if we are ever attacked? In any case, it's never a good idea to be completely dependent on someone else for your survival.
    2. Warfare has changed because the existence of nuclear weapons means it's too dangerous for any country to display too much aggression. If every country scrapped them it wouldn't be long before militarism came back.
    There is a big difference between Estonia and Latvia and us, than the minuscule cultural differences between closeby parts Europe and the US and the UK. Similar and same language respectively, traditions are similar.
    But generally I feel the world is becoming too interconnected for all out warfare too. You get to know people from throughout the world during your life, and people are often educated in different countries to their own etc.

    Probably be another 'world war' if any modestly influential or large country got attacked and invaded. Countries seem to be going about gaining power in more subtle ways now, by proxy and destabilisation etc. But I guess that is largely due to the risk of nukes, as you said.
    It's just so much money, when there are so many people that have so little money. In this country and all over the developing world, who could do with more aid.

    Its quite paradoxical that such a destructive weapon can result in peace. But it seems to be working so far. Says a lot about us as humans, needing it, though. A shame really.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    As others have said Trident serves an important role as a nuclear deterrent - look at the the potential political uproar if Iran has a nuclear arms programmes; pakistan in the 70's?

    After the cold war the dynamics of power competition has become even more interconnected and grown hugely. It's noticeable in the global markets. Countries without a reasonable potential to develop their own nuclear weapons in a short space of time often have little influence - they rely on others military for superiority - south China sea disputes come to mind as well as the middle east as they're prone to having their sovereignty violated.

    If the UK scrapped trident their say in NATO and the UNSecurity council would be more like lip service - a "just for show" reputation. The British seem to enjoy power and so it's necessary they keep Trident even if is just to keep oneself significantly relevant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Christ, we need another thread on this? The last one has only just died down after 200+ posts of the same old guff.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    This is a big election question. Thoughts?
    It isn't a big election question though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omni Vanitas)
    Scrap trident and all the nuclear weapons in the world.
    Can you get the other people who have them or are developing them to do it first please?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It isn't a big election question though.
    It is. There's a fairly good chance that the SNP will hold the balance of power next month, and their opposition to Trident is second only to their desire to break up the UK. Labour are broadly in favour of replacing Trident, as are the majority of Britons, but they may have to choose between abandoning that or losing the support of the SNP. So which would they decide?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    It is. There's a fairly good chance that the SNP will hold the balance of power next month, and their opposition to Trident is second only to their desire to break up the UK. Labour are broadly in favour of replacing Trident, as are the majority of Britons, but they may have to choose between abandoning that or losing the support of the SNP. So which would they decide?
    Says the SNP. The SNP have done significant U turns over the past, lied about many other things. Trust me, trident isn't a day to day issue that people care about.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    It is. There's a fairly good chance that the SNP will hold the balance of power next month, and their opposition to Trident is second only to their desire to break up the UK. Labour are broadly in favour of replacing Trident, as are the majority of Britons, but they may have to choose between abandoning that or losing the support of the SNP. So which would they decide?
    It'll be a confidence and supply arrangement, the SNP can vote against the trident sub replacement and the votes from labour and the conservatives will easily make up the difference.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
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.