This debate is boring because it is widely agreed disarmament is an ideal which would not work. And previous governments in the MHoC deciding to retain Trident and the current government pledging the same means there is widespread support in the MHoC to retain Trident: this motion is not needed.
Nay! This is the opposite of what we should work towards, as our possession of nuclear weapons helps us to join a group of countries that can be taken extremely seriously on the international stage. Instead of working to abolish a weapon that has disincentived the West from another large-scale war, we should reduce our reliance on countries like the United States, extend our military and ensure that we can be as free as possible from the threat of attack. Whilst I support a more non-interventionist approach, self-defence is a legitimate role of the state and we should not create a greater threat by presenting ourselves to the world as weak.
(Original post by Jacob E)
This debate is boring because it is widely agreed disarmament is an ideal which would not work. And previous governments in the MHoC deciding to retain Trident and the current government pledging the same means there is widespread support in the MHoC to retain Trident: this motion is not needed.
'Not work'?
It works for overwhelming majority of the world's countries...
(Original post by JMR2018)
'Not work'?
It works for overwhelming majority of the world's countries...
You need to ask why those countries do not develop nuclear weapons, that is because the principle of mutually assured destruction works in two ways. The first way is the common way which is two powers with nuclear weapons do not attack each other because both will lose from the confrontation. The second way is the more powerful way which does not receive the attention it deserves: the deterrent to develop. If the nuclear countries world rid itself of nuclear weapons you can guarantee a smaller, unstable country would seek to develop nuclear weapons. All countries want to boost their power on the world stage, as the technology will not stop existing after disarmament, unstable countries who are dissuaded from developing nuclear weapons will have a bigger incentive to develop nuclear weapons. If current nuclear countries rid themselves of nuclear weapons, the unstable countries would be able to boost their global power by having a weapon of mass destruction in a way that does not mean competing with more stable, more powerful countries. A new scenario is then reached, because the technology is there for an unstable country to use the future could present a tangible nuclear threat to Britain. The debate then becomes if unknown, unstable countries possessing the nuclear weapons in the world is a better world to live in than the nuclear world today: I believe the world today is better.
(Original post by Jacob E)
This debate is boring because it is widely agreed disarmament is an ideal which would not work. And previous governments in the MHoC deciding to retain Trident and the current government pledging the same means there is widespread support in the MHoC to retain Trident: this motion is not needed.
I have to agree with Jacob here. Multilateral disarmament should be a goal for any government, but its one that is virtually impossible with rogue states like North Korea
Nay, nuclear weapons still act as a deterrent and whilst I hope that we will never be put in a situation to continuously expand or use them, the potential of other countries developing and possessing them with hostile intentions is too great I think ( we’ve seen this with DPRK already)
No. Whilst I'm not worried about any of the existing Nuclear actors lobbing a nuke at the UK anytime soon, I don't see how getting rid of the Trident system is anything but a token gesture that realistically does nothing to progress multilateral disarmament.
(Original post by Connor27)
Nay, abandoning our nuclear deterrent is MAD, especially in the current geopolitical climate of Trump, Putin, ISIS and Kim Jong-Un.
For once, I agree with the honourable member that abandoning our current nuclear deterrent is quite foolhardy in the current climate and also it would be throwing billions of pounds into the bin which is not something I'd be fond of doing.
(Original post by Jacob E)
This debate is boring because it is widely agreed disarmament is an ideal which would not work. And previous governments in the MHoC deciding to retain Trident and the current government pledging the same means there is widespread support in the MHoC to retain Trident: this motion is not needed.
(Original post by Jacob E)
This debate is boring because it is widely agreed disarmament is an ideal which would not work. And previous governments in the MHoC deciding to retain Trident and the current government pledging the same means there is widespread support in the MHoC to retain Trident: this motion is not needed.
No, the genie has been released and can't be put back; strategic nuclear armament constitutes the main deterrence against international aggression and if you think this motion would do anything good in the current political climate, you must live in cloud cuckoo land.
At the same time, we obviously shouldn't be spending more than is absolutely necessary, unlike the bloody warmongering US of A.
This motion is pointless the current government have pledged to retain trident we are not going to be abandoning this pledge. So this motion achieves nothing and thus pointless.
Nay, I do not believe that completing a nuclear disarmament at this current time is a good idea as we face many challenges from around the world ranging from a rogue state like North Korea, hooligans like ISIS and the state of Iran. What we instead should focus on is how to improve our military so that we do not rely on foreign aid and that we can have the capabilities of protecting the people of this country.
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
Go to first unread
.jpg)
