Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

New poll shows public opinion split on Trident Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The concept that it's a sliver of the budget contains a large element of hype and spin
    Which is in no way different to the opposite (your) side. You know perfectly well that numbers can be put together in a massive variety of ways to support any number of arguments.

    Both sides are equally guilty of hyperbole and bovine feacal matter.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Which is in no way different to the opposite (your) side. You know perfectly well that numbers can be put together in a massive variety of ways to support any number of arguments.

    Both sides are equally guilty of hyperbole and bovine feacal matter.
    Well, it's going to be hard for the pro-Tridentees (is that a word?) to hide the fact that the budget, predictably, is already surging upwards. It went up £6bn to £31bn in November, with the MoD keeping a further £10bn in reserve for additional expected costs!
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...review-reveals

    I suspect as usual it will surge up yet more and the final, final cost will be £50bn+, about the same as the amount the Chancellor is currently so desperate to cut off the deficit that he is going to put 50,000 disabled and frail elderly people out on the street.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Well, it's going to be hard for the pro-Tridentees (is that a word?) to hide the fact that the budget, predictably, is already surging upwards. It went up £6bn to £31bn in November, with the MoD keeping a further £10bn in reserve for additional expected costs!
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...review-reveals

    I suspect as usual it will surge up yet more and the final, final cost will be £50bn+, about the same as the amount the Chancellor is currently so desperate to cut off the deficit that he is going to put 50,000 disabled and frail elderly people out on the street.
    Better get selling more arms to the Saudis to help fund it all :dumbells:

    Yemen can take one for the team.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You didn't need an opinion poll to tell you that the public are divided on Trident, surely?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Well, it's going to be hard for the pro-Tridentees (is that a word?) to hide the fact that the budget, predictably, is already surging upwards. It went up £6bn to £31bn in November, with the MoD keeping a further £10bn in reserve for additional expected costs!
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...review-reveals

    I suspect as usual it will surge up yet more and the final, final cost will be £50bn+, about the same as the amount the Chancellor is currently so desperate to cut off the deficit that he is going to put 50,000 disabled and frail elderly people out on the street.
    Frankly, I don't care. The increased costs are the submarines. I don't want British citizens and British personnel put at risk because we're cutting corners and trying to save money.

    You also ignore the fact that that money is going to be spent on British workers in British shipyards, supporting (typically) very left areas of the country and providing significant local boost to industries. All that money will come straight back to the treasury. It will provide skills. It will provide employment.

    Care to explain why that's bad?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    A new survey of public opinion on Trident has found that 51% of the public are in favour of fully renewing it, but that 49% either support Corbyn's hypothetical compromise plan with the unions ("no-nuke subs" or full disarmament.

    This suggests that public opinion isn't as clear-cut as the media are making it out to be, and it's also worth noting that if Corbyn did adopt the compromise position, it is unlikely to damage is standing amongst unilateral disarmers: the 'left-wing' disarmers will still vote for him and the 'right-wing' disarmers wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

    Channel 4 fact-check also says: "Over the long term, there is some evidence of public opinion shifting away from replacing Trident with a like-for-like system, especially if people are told about the likely cost."

    So, there's still room for manoeuvre for Jeremy Corbyn on this issue.
    How can a poll of a few hundred people be trusted to represent the population?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Frankly, I don't care. The increased costs are the submarines. I don't want British citizens and British personnel put at risk because we're cutting corners and trying to save money.

    You also ignore the fact that that money is going to be spent on British workers in British shipyards, supporting (typically) very left areas of the country and providing significant local boost to industries. All that money will come straight back to the treasury. It will provide skills. It will provide employment.

    Care to explain why that's bad?
    Jobs can be created by all kinds of horrible things - the Nazi death camp guards had 'jobs' - so that's not something that should be a primary issue for us on this. In any event, if £50bn were switched to a different spending area, it would create a lot of jobs there. There is no moral merit in having a well paid technical job in what basically consists of planning to commit mass civilian murder, even if it is (allegedly) in the framework of 'deterrence'. (Even that concept has been fluid in the past - under Reagan and Thatcher, the two leaders definitely considered first strike scenarios, or at least encouraged the military to review them - it's hard to believe they don't still run those kinds of scenarios.)

    There's an interesting article in that rabidly left wing journal, the Telegraph, today, on how getting rid of Trident could be a principled and well thought out decision.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...t-Trident.html
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Jobs can be created by all kinds of horrible things - the Nazi death camp guards had 'jobs' - so that's not something that should be a primary issue for us on this. In any event, if £50bn were switched to a different spending area, it would create a lot of jobs there. There is no moral merit in having a well paid technical job in what basically consists of planning to commit mass civilian murder, even if it is (allegedly) in the framework of 'deterrence'. (Even that concept has been fluid in the past - under Reagan and Thatcher, the two leaders definitely considered first strike scenarios, or at least encouraged the military to review them - it's hard to believe they don't still run those kinds of scenarios.)

    There's an interesting article in that rabidly left wing journal, the Telegraph, today, on how getting rid of Trident could be a principled and well thought out decision.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...t-Trident.html
    "We agreed to the renewal of the independent nuclear deterrent. You might think I would have been certain of that decision, but I hesitated over it. I could see the force of the common sense and practical argument against Trident, yet in the final analysis I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defence. I did not think this was a ‘tough on defence’ versus ‘weak or pacifist’ issue at all. On simple, pragmatic grounds, there was a case either way. The expense is huge, and the utility in a post-Cold War world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existence in terms of military use. Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift and anti-terror equipment? Not a daft notion. In the situations British forces would likely be called upon to fight, it was pretty clear what mattered most. It's true that it is frankly inconceivable we would use our nuclear deterrent alone, without the US – and let us hope a situation in which the US is even threatening us never arises – but it’s a big step to put that beyond your capability as a country." ~ Tony Blair.

    Drewski, Aj12 it;s the bolded bit that's important. You both speak of people on the other side of the debate as if they are infantile flat earthers. As if occupying some perceived superior center ground is some kind of argument for nukes and makes someone automatically correct. It's intellectually lazy and makes me suspicious.

    As someone on the fence the pro trident renewal lot are better taking the Tony Blair approach in tying to convince me to keep them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Jobs can be created by all kinds of horrible things - the Nazi death camp guards had 'jobs' - so that's not something that should be a primary issue for us on this. In any event, if £50bn were switched to a different spending area, it would create a lot of jobs there. There is no moral merit in having a well paid technical job in what basically consists of planning to commit mass civilian murder, even if it is (allegedly) in the framework of 'deterrence'. (Even that concept has been fluid in the past - under Reagan and Thatcher, the two leaders definitely considered first strike scenarios, or at least encouraged the military to review them - it's hard to believe they don't still run those kinds of scenarios.)

    There's an interesting article in that rabidly left wing journal, the Telegraph, today, on how getting rid of Trident could be a principled and well thought out decision.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...t-Trident.html
    Can you please point to me a project that prevents large scale conventional war from ever occurring for less than £50 billion (even though the real price is a lot less, but I don't want to argue about that)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    "We agreed to the renewal of the independent nuclear deterrent. You might think I would have been certain of that decision, but I hesitated over it. I could see the force of the common sense and practical argument against Trident, yet in the final analysis I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defence. I did not think this was a ‘tough on defence’ versus ‘weak or pacifist’ issue at all. On simple, pragmatic grounds, there was a case either way. The expense is huge, and the utility in a post-Cold War world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existence in terms of military use. Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift and anti-terror equipment? Not a daft notion. In the situations British forces would likely be called upon to fight, it was pretty clear what mattered most. It's true that it is frankly inconceivable we would use our nuclear deterrent alone, without the US – and let us hope a situation in which the US is even threatening us never arises – but it’s a big step to put that beyond your capability as a country." ~ Tony Blair.

    Drewski, Aj12 it;s the bolded bit that's important. You both speak of people on the other side of the debate as if they are infantile flat earthers. As if occupying some perceived superior center ground is some kind of argument for nukes and makes someone automatically correct. It's intellectually lazy and makes me suspicious.

    As someone on the fence the pro trident renewal lot are better taking the Tony Blair approach in tying to convince me to keep them.
    I've seen that quote and he makes a good point. I am quite happy to have a calm debate on this subject. What I am sick of is FoS constantly repeating the same claim that the Americans have control over Trident and must give direct permission in the event of a launch. Each time she has been called on it (and this must be the fourth or fifth time this has happened) she deflects and moves the goalposts. She then trots out the Portillo quote as her only evidence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Jobs can be created by all kinds of horrible things -
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)

    Drewski, Aj12 it;s the bolded bit that's important. You both speak of people on the other side of the debate as if they are infantile flat earthers. As if occupying some perceived superior center ground is some kind of argument for nukes and makes someone automatically correct. It's intellectually lazy and makes me suspicious.

    As someone on the fence the pro trident renewal lot are better taking the Tony Blair approach in tying to convince me to keep them.
    If somebody make intellectually lazy arguments, perhaps it is right to treat them as infantile flat earthers? Obviously there are good grounds to disagree with Trident, but personally from anecdotal evidence at University seminars etc, I often come up against intellectually inept arguments that are easily brushed aside. Mostly these are "killing is immoral" or "America controls it" or "look at Hiroshima" or "the cost is too much" (but usually are of the left and want to increase state spending anyway?). Lazy and infantile than don't require a serious response.

    Can't speak for the other two, but I'm going to treat a stupid person as a stupid person. Respect has to be earned, not demanded.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Drewski, Aj12 it;s the bolded bit that's important. You both speak of people on the other side of the debate as if they are infantile flat earthers. As if occupying some perceived superior center ground is some kind of argument for nukes and makes someone automatically correct. It's intellectually lazy and makes me suspicious.

    As someone on the fence the pro trident renewal lot are better taking the Tony Blair approach in tying to convince me to keep them.
    I'm more than happy to admit there are two rational sides to this debate. However, what is being presented above by other users is rarely rational.

    Personally, I'd love to be rid of the entire class of weapons. They're an abhorrent weapon that I'd deeply hope never gets used again (I say again, though technically that type of weapon never has been, but you know what I mean).

    What I'm not comfortable with, nor have the prescience to know, is the notion of doing it unilaterally in a world we can't predict. OK, so those weapons might not counter the threats we face now. But 20 years ago we faced very different threats and 20 years from now we will likely face very different threats again. I'm not comfortable in giving up on an insurance policy, no matter how expensive it is.

    If we could in-invent the weapon I'd do it in a heartbeat. If we could do something to render it obsolete I'd bite your arm off.

    Until then, the safest long term option, in my opinion, is to keep them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Can you please point to me a project that prevents large scale conventional war from ever occurring for less than £50 billion (even though the real price is a lot less, but I don't want to argue about that)
    The existence of nuclear weapons has not stopped major conventional wars breaking out - it may have in Europe (although we still had the fairly major Balkan conflict and more recent Russian incursions), but it certainly did not stop proxy wars between Russia and the US on a large scale.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I've seen that quote and he makes a good point. I am quite happy to have a calm debate on this subject. What I am sick of is FoS constantly repeating the same claim that the Americans have control over Trident and must give direct permission in the event of a launch. Each time she has been called on it (and this must be the fourth or fifth time this has happened) she deflects and moves the goalposts. She then trots out the Portillo quote as her only evidence.
    Anyone who believes that it's really an independent system has got to come up with something better than saying it is because that's what politicians have called it for the last 50 years. They lie about it.

    A key point is, given that the US provide this system to the British (the nukes are made by Lockheed) would they really do this if they didn't remain under US control?
    http://david-morrison.org.uk/nuclear...ndependent.htm

    Would a superpower like the US really let them be used by another state that had genuine independence and could decide (theoretically) to target a US ally or interest with them?

    It's clear that the answer must be no and that means there must be some form of joint control, US veto or US override.

    Secondly, the myth/fantasy that Prime Ministers love to see spread, that they have their 'finger on the nuclear button'. In reality, they are under NATO control and NATO is under US control.

    Really, the onus is on the 'independent' believers to prove it, as it's so obviously tripe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The existence of nuclear weapons has not stopped major conventional wars breaking out - it may have in Europe (although we still had the fairly major Balkan conflict and more recent Russian incursions), but it certainly did not stop proxy wars between Russia and the US on a large scale.
    It has. Please point to the major conventional war between Russia and the USA. In fact, please point to any conventional war between two nuclear armed nations.

    Proxy wars aren't large scale conventional warfare. Proxy wars are preferable to a conventional war. Nuclear weapons aren't meant to deter proxy wars. Stop side stepping and answer the question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    It has. Please point to the major conventional war between Russia and the USA.

    Proxy wars aren't large scale conventional warfare. Proxy wars are preferable to a conventional war. Nuclear weapons aren't meant to deter proxy wars. Stop side stepping and answer the question.
    I don't what you mean that they aren't 'large scale'. The Vietnam war killed over a million civilians - not large scale enough for you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Polls consistently find that support for renewing the existing nuclear system reduces to a plurality if some third way option is introduced, be that aircraft-delivered weapons, tomahawk aboard Astute, or the latest inanity from Corbyn.

    The problem is that these third way options don't really exist. Building submarines and then not loading any weapons aboard them is absurd and will never be pursued by any government. Tomahawks and the like have more subtle technical problems, but those problems are severe enough that they too will not be pursued.

    When forced to make a choice between renewal and disarmament - the choice that really exists - large majorities choose renewal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't what you mean that they aren't 'large scale'. The Vietnam war killed over a million civilians - not large scale enough for you?
    Vietnam was neither a major conventional war, or one involving directly two opposing nuclear armed nations. Learn the definitions and the different types of warfare.


    I ask again, please point to a war between Russia and the USA, or failing that, a conventional war between any nuclear powers.

    Stop sidestepping, you've been to both a private school and Oxford, so you're quite capable in answering the question.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't what you mean that they aren't 'large scale'. The Vietnam war killed over a million civilians - not large scale enough for you?
    Please help me to understand your argument.

    Premise: In the second half of the 20th century, countries with nuclear weapons were never attacked by other countries, nor fought wars on their own soil.

    Premise: In the second half of the 20th century, countries without nuclear weapons were turned into warzones by countries with nuclear weapons, resulting in megadeaths and mass destruction of property.

    Conclusion: The UK would be better off without nuclear weapons.

    Is that right?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • 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.