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

New poll shows public opinion split on Trident Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How about we ditch Trident and then ditch tuition fees?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In your opinion. In others such as the former Tory defence secretary's it is not.
    The likes of Isis, the biggest threat at the moment are not put off by trident given they believe.

    I'm not saying it is or is not a deterrent, that's the point of the debate. The problem is it is just being accepted ans stated that it absolutely is and you're not allowed to challenge that apparently.
    A nuclear deterrent deters existential threats, it prevents a situation where the UK could find itself wiped out, by either massive conventional forces or a WMD attack. Any one who believes ISIS is an existential threat to the UK needs their head examined. The head of the USMC recently pointed out that mismanagement was a greater threat to the force than ISIS. It is a threat yes, but one that can be dealt with through conventional forces. Trident is not meant to deter terrorist attacks by non-state actors in the same way an armed police unit does not deter cyber crime.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Because your point was a party political point and had nothing whatsoever to do with the post I was making. Was just purely opportunistic on your behalf.
    It was party political? What the **** are you on?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingKoala)
    How about we ditch Trident and then ditch tuition fees?
    And ditch social mobility too I guess
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    A nuclear deterrent deters existential threats, it prevents a situation where the UK could find itself wiped out, by either massive conventional forces or a WMD attack. Any one who believes ISIS is an existential threat to the UK needs their head examined. The head of the USMC recently pointed out that mismanagement was a greater threat to the force than ISIS. It is a threat yes, but one that can be dealt with through conventional forces. Trident is not meant to deter terrorist attacks by non-state actors in the same way an armed police unit does not deter cyber crime.
    Perhaps, perhaps not.
    Could well argue that if the likes of Isis ever got Nuclear Weapons they wouldn't be put off at all by ours given their whole ideology.

    It is not an unquestionable, unarguable fact that trident is a deterrent.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It was party political? What the **** are you on?
    It had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, nothing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And ditch social mobility too I guess

    No but it would give people of different classes more of an equal chance.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, nothing.
    Did it not? Would you like to remind me how both started? How about the views being brought up being the polar opposites?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingKoala)
    No but it would give people of different classes more of an equal chance.
    Which has demonstrated time and again to be false.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which has demonstrated time and again to be false.
    With education, when?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Did it not? Would you like to remind me how both started? How about the views being brought up being the polar opposites?
    No, it absolutely didn't.
    My point was that it shouldn't be accepted as an unquestionable fact that trident is a deterrent. We should be allowed to debate whether it is or not.

    Your point had nothing to do with that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It is not an unquestionable, unarguable fact that trident is a deterrent.
    Yes it is, to a certain type of warfare .

    You're acting as though because it won't deter a certain type of warfare it is then entirely redundant.

    Will it deter then main threats we're facing now? Probably not. Are those threats going to be the same in 30+ years? You can't possibly know. Neither can anyone else. So while you don't know, you retain your insurance policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Irrespective of the financial cost of trident and the fact that it is a diabolical waste of money, I oppose it on environmental grounds along with its impact on local populations. My evidence for being anti-trident comes from my mother and before her my grandfather. Back in 1964 my grandfather was employed by Strathclyde University as skipper of their research vessel, imaginatively called 'The Strathclyde' which tested all the waters around the Clyde Estuary amongst other waterways. My grandfather moved from the north east of Scotland to take up this post with the family moving to Dalandhui, a property owned by the university at the head of the Gareloch just across the water from Faslane. Prior to moving there my mum and aunts spent their summers in the local swimming pool and swimming at the local beach - water babies. Naturally they were delighted to have a jetty, a swimming pool and a whole body of water in which to play in at their new home. My mum told me they were quite mutinous when granddad banned them from ever going into the water, by not as much as a toe, something they struggled to understand being only 8years old but they were left in no doubt whatsoever that this was one rule that was non-negotiable and that punishment would come in the form of turning green with the possiblity of an extra limb growing where none should be. When she got older my mum understood that of course her father had been protecting his daughters from being contaminated from the highly polluted and dangerous waters of the Gareloch and its environs. The research undertaken by Strathclyde and Strathclyde II was invaluable in highlighting the environmental impact of this abomination placed on Scottish waterways. I do believe that Garelochhead is also one of the hotspots for childhood cancers though I do not have links to evidence proving this. It is something I remember reading.
    As an aside my grandad was present at the inauguration of Strathclyde when it received its university status. Though long before my time my mum remembers Professor Curran and some of the other academics from regular visits to the house to discuss aspects of work with grandad. The house which also had the university's boat club was a hive of activity at weekends and mum said that though she was just little the students were really nice to her and her sisters and when grandad wasn't there to say 'no' they'd go out sailing or out in the speedboats with the students. I think this personal connection with the university is why I am hoping that my application to the university isn't rejected! Sorry I got carried away there!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Trident is designed as more of a deterrence than a set of weapons that we actually USE..... but who would we actually attack? There aren't really any COUNTRIES as a whole that are targets.... more like groups within them. Nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic loss of civilian life and probably wouldn't eliminate anyone very much. Take IS for example, which is the most discussed one recently. There was quite a bit of controversy over the airstrikes, partially because IS isn't in one place. This isn't the cold war and submarines are ineffectual and outdated. I read that it takes days to fire the missiles, by which point considerable damage could have been done. I am kind of inclined to think that if the UK renews its nuclear weaponry, it is likely to become a trend and everyone will start building up nuclear armaments, until it effectively becomes a competition (Like the dreadnoughts race).

    Also, just from a social perspective, when there are so many problems in the world, why are we discussing nukes when there are still people without access to clean water and with diminished human rights? Especially because these nukes will cost £34bn (Corbyn's £100 billion estimate doesn't correlate to what anyone else has said, ever, so i'm using the Greenpeace figure)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Most of it is utterly absurd, as it isn't independent and never has been (that is one of the big myths we live under - it couldn't be fired without US permission and therefore is part of the US arsenal anyway), nobody now alive would care if we could and did retaliate as we would mostly be dead or dying, which kind of invalidates the idea that it 'defends' us in any meaningful way, the 'deterrent' is no different and adds nothing to the existing and overwhelmingly massive US deterrent, it is stonkingly expensive, it's the wrong solution for the age of freelance terror movements and states and it is hopelessly vulnerable to new technologies like super hacking and drones.

    In short, it's yesterday's solution, but the cost falls on us today and stops the country from doing many much more useful things.
    Really? REALLY? Please, be better informed before posting complete rubbish. Also another person who fails to understand their purpose.

    It's completely independent. The delivery system, that's rocket motor and guidance is US by design and production only, that's all. Warhead, detonator, detonation mechanism, launch systems and electronics are all UK. Unlike America, they can be fired by the sub's commander without auth from the Government.

    People do care, its called MAD for a reason, the offensive country would face the same destruction it caused. This is the whole core idea of the weapon, that it is never fired. The attacker knows they will face the same destruction, as attack is suicidal. Hence deterent. If you have to use it, it's whole purpose as a weapon has already failed.

    It's unfair and unwise to rely on the US for everything. They may have a political change or be unwilling to help. Europe is also a seperate continent and needs it's own set, despite the US having them.

    It's actually very, very, very cheap for the benefits it gives. ~£1.6 bil a year is nothing and thats for new subs as well! You'd be stupid not to pay for it. It's less than 0.35% of annual government income and for that it protects against:

    Nuclear attack
    Conventional attack
    Political bullying
    Some types of political pressure
    Allies being attacked
    Maintains strength of NATO
    Military Credability
    National Security
    Maintains defense and security of Europe
    Contributes towards current global stability through MAD.

    The 'spend it on healthcare' augument is moot since its also 1.4% of the NHS buget or <0.75% of the overall annual healthcare buget.

    It's not supposed to defend against terror, it's supposed to defend against nuclear agression and everything listed above. Russia is the primary potential agressor, smaller nations such as Iran and N.Korea are developing their own weapons and those guys arn't stable or sensible nations.

    Your tin foil hat shines radiantly when you mention 'super hacking' and 'drones'.

    In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Disarmorment is a noble goal but perhaps one for the future. For now, it's stupid and naive. It is better to maintain the satus quo. I'll remind everyone that if we disarm, the only nuclear capable country in Europe would be France.

    I'll also say, nukes have never hurt anyone, other than the two times they were used in Japan. More people have died via conventional weapons since 1945 than from nukes.

    Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia in good faith, look where it got them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People in the upper echelons of society are heavily invested in British defense. Don't believe everything you read. My opinion is that the cost is astronomical. It's going to be a decent chunk of our national debt for some time to come and America has enough for everyone. Next to the American cache Trident is a laughing stock. We don't need it. If the Americans want missiles stashed over here in Europe then let them pay for it. I simply don't believe that Russia or China are a military threat to us. We may argue over some fairly major issues but there is never going to be a nuclear war between East and West. The US will continue to poke the bear and it will continue to ignore it like a petulant child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Really? REALLY? Please, be better informed before posting complete rubbish. Also another person who fails to understand their purpose.

    It's completely independent. The delivery system, that's rocket motor and guidance is US by design and production only, that's all. Warhead, detonator, detonation mechanism, launch systems and electronics are all UK. Unlike America, they can be fired by the sub's commander without auth from the Government.

    People do care, its called MAD for a reason, the offensive country would face the same destruction it caused. This is the whole core idea of the weapon, that it is never fired. The attacker knows they will face the same destruction, as attack is suicidal. Hence deterent. If you have to use it, it's whole purpose as a weapon has already failed.

    It's unfair and unwise to rely on the US for everything. They may have a political change or be unwilling to help. Europe is also a seperate continent and needs it's own set, despite the US having them.

    It's actually very, very, very cheap for the benefits it gives. ~£1.6 bil a year is nothing and thats for new subs as well! You'd be stupid not to pay for it. It's less than 0.35% of annual government income and for that it protects against:

    Nuclear attack
    Conventional attack
    Political bullying
    Some types of political pressure
    Allies being attacked
    Maintains strength of NATO
    Military Credability
    National Security
    Maintains defense and security of Europe
    Contributes towards current global stability through MAD.

    The 'spend it on healthcare' augument is moot since its also 1.4% of the NHS buget or <0.75% of the overall annual healthcare buget.

    It's not supposed to defend against terror, it's supposed to defend against nuclear agression and everything listed above. Russia is the primary potential agressor, smaller nations such as Iran and N.Korea are developing their own weapons and those guys arn't stable or sensible nations.

    Your tin foil hat shines radiantly when you mention 'super hacking' and 'drones'.

    In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Disarmament is a noble goal but perhaps one for the future. For now, it's stupid and naive. It is better to maintain the satus quo. I'll remind everyone that if we disarm, the only nuclear capable country in Europe would be France.

    I'll also say, nukes have never hurt anyone, other than the two times they were used in Japan. More people have died via conventional weapons since 1945 than from nukes.

    Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia in good faith, look where it got them.
    Government voted for £100bn renewal so make that more like 30% of annual income. Still worth it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DystopiaisReal)
    Also, just from a social perspective, when there are so many problems in the world, why are we discussing nukes when there are still people without access to clean water and with diminished human rights?
    The first duty of a Government is the safety of its people. Simple as that. If the people aren't safe there's not much point in them then trying to fix the social ills.

    (Original post by daveGIS)
    I simply don't believe that Russia or China are a military threat to us.
    Key word: are.

    Does your crystal ball tell you exactly what's going to happen for the next 40+yrs? If so, you could make a lot of money out of that.

    (Original post by daveGIS)
    Government voted for £100bn renewal so make that more like 30% of annual income. Still worth it?
    That's a lifetime cost, not a one time hit, of something that's going to be around for 40ish years.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daveGIS)
    People in the upper echelons of society are heavily invested in British defense. Don't believe everything you read. My opinion is that the cost is astronomical. It's going to be a decent chunk of our national debt for some time to come and America has enough for everyone. Next to the American cache Trident is a laughing stock. We don't need it. If the Americans want missiles stashed over here in Europe then let them pay for it. I simply don't believe that Russia or China are a military threat to us. We may argue over some fairly major issues but there is never going to be a nuclear war between East and West. The US will continue to poke the bear and it will continue to ignore it like a petulant child.
    Is that why Russia is constantly probing our air and naval defences, modernizing and expanding it's own nuclear forces and leaking stories about new weapons? All after illegally annexing territory of another sovereign state. America is certainly the provocative one being ignored here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That's a lifetime cost, not a one time hit, of something that's going to be around for 40ish years.
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Does your crystal ball tell you exactly what's going to happen for the next 40+yrs? If so, you could make a lot of money out of that.
    1) Fair play it looks that way but it's going to be 3.7Bn for 15 years. That's a huge chunk of budget for something we don't need. It's enough to pay for A&E for 40 years.

    2) So what? Even if it does it'll be a war between the American and Russian arsenal. Trident is a drop in the ocean and I'll be dead. You say we can't rely on America but I'm afraid if anyone wants to get into a nuclear war with the UK they will have to be prepared to face down America or face destruction. That leaves one country that would completely annihilate us anyway. If we don't have the cash to match the Russian arsenal then trident is completely pointless from the get go. We're bringing a knife to a gunfight. More like a pair of oven mittens tbh. It's worse than useless. It's a liability.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Break up or unrequited love?
    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.