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

New poll shows public opinion split on Trident Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    Insurance always has to be at a realistic price for the risk. Your house might get wiped out by an asteroid and a policy costing 10p that guaranteed protection for 30 years and given that it is a very, very remote risk, that might be a good deal. If the quote was 500 quid, you would hesitate.

    The current risk of an all out nuclear retaliation being needed appears slight, so on a simple risk analysis, paying 50bn plus to insure that seems steep. I won't repeat the 30 years bit, as there is a high chance that the purchased system will become obsolete well before then.

    The proposed insurance is also very strange, as it is a most unusual type of insurance that actually by purchasing, somewhat increases the risk of the insured incident taking place. We know enough about national nuclear defence systems to suspect that they are accident prone and there is enough history of the cold war to show that nuclear stand offs are highly prone to human misunderstandings and bad decisions. Then there is the huge annual cost of trying to keep up with the suspected enemy systems and of course they are simultaneously engaged in similar struggles.

    Then we have the fact that our alleged best friends, the US, have already fully insured us against this remote possibility, albeit, we have no guarantee they will always be our friends, although if we are nervous about that, it's quite hard to understand then why the policy relies totally on them supplying the technology either way.

    Finally, all this is happening against a background where the national finances are so dire that the NHS is about to sack thousands of nurses, we cannot afford social care for the elderly and sick and we have cut the conventional military to the bone.

    A rational person might conclude that these facts indicate that there must be a narrow clique of self interested people, like weapons manufacturers, who have succeeded in controlling and manipulating politicians and civil servants to push for this, because it makes no sense at all that we are doing it, unless something like that is happening.

    When you read back into the history, the decisions about our nuclear weapons were generally taken in secret and the public were told many lies. Looks like the latter is still going on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We should keep it incase Donald Trump becomes president of the USA, he doesn't know what the nuclear triad is and will probably bomb Agrabah.

    In all seriousness though, we don't need nuclear weaponry, but some defense is completely necessary in a world riddled with terror. We shouldn't waste money on things like this that can go to education or the economy, it has the capability to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of (mostly) innocent people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Next he'll be advocating sending our troops into battle without bullets.
    To be fair, I bet Corbyn touches himself at night at the thought of thousands of British troops without weapons running into Kalashnikov gunfire from an Islamist/Soviet Red Army/IRA tag team.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Carrying out a poll at a Green party rally doesn't count as impartial
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    To be fair, I bet Corbyn touches himself at night at the thought of thousands of British troops without weapons running into Kalashnikov gunfire from an Islamist/Soviet Red Army/IRA tag team.
    I think it's more likely that the people behind our misguided policy to keep nuclear weapons are letting their paranoid delusions about a joint Russian-ISIS-Argentinian-IRA-French?-German?-Migrant? invasion get in the way of clear, rational thinking.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    To be fair, I bet Corbyn touches himself at night at the thought of thousands of British troops without weapons running into Kalashnikov gunfire from an Islamist/Soviet Red Army/IRA tag team.
    I bet you think about that image a lot.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    What's the point of 'protecting' people with nuclear weapons if they are currently vulnerable and don't have a decent standard of living?? Fixing social problems is a type of protection, surely?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Insurance always has to be at a realistic price for the risk. Your house might get wiped out by an asteroid and a policy costing 10p that guaranteed protection for 30 years and given that it is a very, very remote risk, that might be a good deal. If the quote was 500 quid, you would hesitate.

    The current risk of an all out nuclear retaliation being needed appears slight, so on a simple risk analysis, paying 50bn plus to insure that seems steep. I won't repeat the 30 years bit, as there is a high chance that the purchased system will become obsolete well before then.

    The proposed insurance is also very strange, as it is a most unusual type of insurance that actually by purchasing, somewhat increases the risk of the insured incident taking place. We know enough about national nuclear defence systems to suspect that they are accident prone and there is enough history of the cold war to show that nuclear stand offs are highly prone to human misunderstandings and bad decisions. Then there is the huge annual cost of trying to keep up with the suspected enemy systems and of course they are simultaneously engaged in similar struggles.

    Then we have the fact that our alleged best friends, the US, have already fully insured us against this remote possibility, albeit, we have no guarantee they will always be our friends, although if we are nervous about that, it's quite hard to understand then why the policy relies totally on them supplying the technology either way.

    Finally, all this is happening against a background where the national finances are so dire that the NHS is about to sack thousands of nurses, we cannot afford social care for the elderly and sick and we have cut the conventional military to the bone.

    A rational person might conclude that these facts indicate that there must be a narrow clique of self interested people, like weapons manufacturers, who have succeeded in controlling and manipulating politicians and civil servants to push for this, because it makes no sense at all that we are doing it, unless something like that is happening.

    When you read back into the history, the decisions about our nuclear weapons were generally taken in secret and the public were told many lies. Looks like the latter is still going on.
    So we raise taxes 😊
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    So we raise taxes 😊
    A simple start would be to introduce the digital turnover tax currently proposed by dangerous lefty Nigel Lawson.

    Then we can move on to posh properties in London.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    A simple start would be to introduce the digital turnover tax currently proposed by dangerous lefty Nigel Lawson.

    Then we can move on to posh properties in London.
    Actually, we could just follow Corbyn's line of thinking and print the money to pay for Trident, not to mention the money needed to pay for the new engines on the destroyers thanks to Buff Hoon's silly decision.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    Actually, we could just follow Corbyn's line of thinking and print the money to pay for Trident, not to mention the money needed to pay for the new engines on the destroyers thanks to Buff Hoon's silly decision.
    Are they still building the aircraft carrier that won't have any aircraft?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DystopiaisReal)
    What's the point of 'protecting' people with nuclear weapons if they are currently vulnerable and don't have a decent standard of living?? Fixing social problems is a type of protection, surely?
    "Can't protect from all kinds of threats, therefore no point in protecting from a nuclear threat"

    Don't you see that as a bit of a silly line of thinking? It's like saying a soldier shouldn't bother with wearing a helmet since an enemy still could potentially still kill them by stabbing them in the face.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daveGIS)
    Government voted for £100bn renewal so make that more like 30% of annual income. Still worth it?
    Please don't be so deluded. If you're going to debate, fine, debate is good but at least know the basics of what you're debating.

    All figures are lifetime cost, including building 4 new SSBN subs.

    Lifetime cost could be either 32, 35 or 40 years. If we take middle of the road at 35, that's 2.86 billion a year or 0.57% of 2014 government income.

    YES, it's a very good deal.

    The highest estimate i've seen was 167 bil over 32 years, even that is still a good deal considering you get 4 new SSBN's, employ X people to design, build and man the subs, all the support and maintinance staff (who then pay tax etc etc), give BAE business and keep them going and everyone they employ in that sector for another good 15 years.

    Then you get all the advantages of having nukes too.

    Europe needs nuclear defence, it's the most advanced area on the planet and yet it has only two nations out of 28 to defend it.

    In comparison to the other things we spend money on, renewing trident at 2.8 bil a year, is literally a drop in the bucket. The Social security bill is 38 billion a year alone and that's one of the smaller things, 2.8 bil is TINY for the advantages you gain.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    x
    Are you a Corbynite?

    ....or do you just talk rubbish to troll?

    You could work for RT.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Are you a Corbynite?

    ....or do you just talk rubbish to troll?

    You could work for RT.
    Try debating ideas, rather than just making rude remarks?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Are they still building the aircraft carrier that won't have any aircraft?
    Not to mention a lack of support ships to protect them
 
 
 
  • 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
    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.