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

I would not describe the UK as "formidable", more "snobbish".

It was more a geographical reference if anything else. People assume we are still an empire when we are really just a dot on the map.

Because there is greater strength long term in being part of a larger body. Especially when we have to contend with the USA, Russia, India and China. The UK over generations will eventually lose all major significance on a world stage without being part of the EU, in my view. There are of course different views.

But especially in terms of military force. If we're talking deterrents, I would find a unified European wide threat more of a deterrent than what the UK can afford alone. Also to avoid being singled out as a primary target as the UK is now.

About 6% of clinical services are provided by private contractors, many of which are charities and other organisations. So no, he didn't 'privatise' the NHS.

He hasn't managed it yet. He's started the process.

This is an interesting one. In virtually every election since the 1970s, there has been the suggestion that NHS privatisation is somehow just over the horizon, despite the fact that it is actually entirely against every major party's policies.

It sounds like nonsense to me. But let's remember that what you originally said has been definitively shown to be nonsense that you've now back-peddled from. You said "He's privatised the NHS and he's increased the inequality gap"

The first part of that, you've now admitted is untrue. The second is false.



Due to Cameron's bedroom taxes and MP bonuses? Please.

"The US remains the biggest spender with a total of $30.2bn, the largest aid disbursement ever recorded by a single donor." Bigger economy, more money.

Um, in terms of virtually everything from military to diplomatic power, we are doing rather better than the Germans. We are on track to be a larger economy than them, despite their considerably larger population.

Are we really? As mentioned before, GDP.

I heard about an issue. I researched the issue. I've seen both sides of the argument. I have sided with one side of the argument because I agree with the supporting evidence. There is nothing wrong with sticking to your guns.

I think you're underestimating our power... Also, with the way things are going with Russia, I see WW3 happening.

Hmmm, I think there is a possibility, you can never really rule it out, but Russia understands that it will be a 2 way thing, so they will definetely think twice. Neither side is THAT stupid.

Compare the size of Russia to the size of the UK. If UK was to go to war with Russia, it most definitely wouldn't be without the backing of the USA.
The USA are known warmongers.

I think it means pretending as though we are some major power shouldn't be on the minds of British people. We should be humble.



I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that nuclear weapons represent power. I think it seems to imply that you're under confident in your country's military and I think it seems to suggest that you're inclined to violence. Which I don't think is a message the UK should be sending.

Yet, Germany is a member of the G8. I think that implies a lot about Germany's power level.

No, they do not, because Germany host the nuclear weapons of another country, so they are not at threat from nuclear attack, they are protected and they're not paying for it. It's a sensible idea. One which we should learn from too.

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

have you locked your front door before you went to bed?

Yes the front door is locked but that actually offers defense nuclear weapons don't as they know you won't use them.

I'm amazed that so many people actually engage in a debate over this issue. How anyone can justify nuclear weapons, I'll never know.

So what you're basically suggesting is that the UK freeload off the rest of NATO. What if the rest of NATO also starts thinking like you do?

I'm amazed that so many people actually engage in a debate over this issue. How anyone can justify nuclear weapons, I'll never know.

And your recognition of the fact that all influence does not stem from the amount of nuclear arms your country possess is precisely the point I was trying to make in the first place. We do not have economic strength, but we do have the NHS and two of the best universities in the world in the UK. That makes us considerably influential. We don't have enough nuclear power to actually gain influence because of it, so to avoid spending frankly ridiculous amounts of money on nuclear weapons that the USA is so good at, we may as well scrap the premise altogether. Not all foreign influence has to be military. The most influential foreign powers come from strong governing, and judging by the state of the politics in this decade, we certainly don't have that.

If you were to engage with the debate as well, maybe you'll understand how they can justify it...

I'll never accept that we have to spend 100s of billions of pounds on WOMD to ensure peace. Infact, very few countries do. Only former imperialist countries embark on this ego trip.