What are your views on the trident nuclear deterrent? Watch

the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
A big stick that can never be used is not much of a stick.
we do have the option of using it. that is why we have not been invaded recently.
0
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by Notoriety)
The nuclear weapons are not used. Submarines are, aye. We have a bunch of them which don't carry nuclear warheads which could do the job of patrolling the oceans and seas just as effectively as the Trident carriers.
Carrying a nuclear weapon as a deterrent is using it, it doesn't mean there has to be some sort of daily weapons test.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by jameswhughes)
Carrying a nuclear weapon as a deterrent is using it, it doesn't mean there has to be some sort of daily weapons test.
Well, to "deter" means another country decides not to send a nuclear attack to the UK because we have nuclear weapons. Firstly I don't think any country thinks about sending a nuclear attack to the UK at all. Secondly I think there is an effective collective deterrence through Nato (which Spain and Italy enjoy); that would serve as the real basis for not attacking the UK.

It really gets to the point FoS is making -- the UK nuclear deterrence is an extension of the US deterrence. I have an idea: why don't we just go all the way and rely entirely on the US deterrence, like Spain and Italy?
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
(Original post by Ollie_16)
Look at France they use Nuclear Weapons from their air force the cost would work out cheaper if we have a deterrent like them instead of using trident. If we do this we can use the excess money on health, education and policing.
Bombers are far easier to shoot down than missiles and with far less range.

I would be open to developing our own missile system but tha5 would be more expensive.
0
reply
Ollie_16
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#25
Perhaps a multi launch rocket system then it would be cheaper than trident.
(Original post by Rakas21)
Bombers are far easier to shoot down than missiles and with far less range.

I would be open to developing our own missile system but tha5 would be more expensive.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by Notoriety)
Well, to "deter" means another country decides not to send a nuclear attack to the UK because we have nuclear weapons. Firstly I don't think any country thinks about sending a nuclear attack to the UK at all. Secondly I think there is an effective collective deterrence through Nato (which Spain and Italy enjoy); that would serve as the real basis for not attacking the UK.

It really gets to the point FoS is making -- the UK nuclear deterrence is an extension of the US deterrence. I have an idea: why don't we just go all the way and rely entirely on the US deterrence, like Spain and Italy?
The question here is intent.

If you believe that our nuclear threat should be equal to our no deal brexit threat (I,e. We’d probably never actually use it) then by all means, placing a few nuclear bombers around is a good idea.

If you believe however that we should have the ability to retaliate or launch a first strike then we must have our own.

The question is therefore whether you believe that your murdered daughter (in a scenario where Russia nuke the city she is in) requires vengeance.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by Ollie_16)
Perhaps a multi launch rocket system then it would be cheaper than trident.
One of convenient factors with Trident, being submarine based, it is almost impossible to locate in the open sea meaning that it's borderline impossible to destroy.
Air launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles and land based ICBMs are far more vulnerable to destruction before they're used. Plus, who would want to live next to ICBM silos? They'd have to be placed in remote areas (IE Scotland - which of course the SNP would love.)
Realistically, there's no way to reduce cost of the UK's nuclear deterrent without substantially reducing its effectiveness. The UK military, across the board, is already a suffering from capability gaps that politicians think will save money but actually cost more in the longer term (if they actually save any money at all).
Last edited by Tempest II; 1 week ago
0
reply
craftywizardboy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by Ollie_16)
I'm in favour of nuclear weapons but I'd hope the government comes up with a cheaper alternative to trident as the new submarines will cost about 30 billion.
If you understood the politics in Europe and with Russia at the moment you would that we indefinitely need Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent. We need it now more than ever.
0
reply
Ollie_16
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#29
I was stating that we do need nuclear weapons but we can use a cheaper alternative. Look up on the staggering cost of trident keeping three submarines maintained. Having a MLRS will save us a lot of money.
(Original post by craftywizardboy)
If you understood the politics in Europe and with Russia at the moment you would that we indefinitely need Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent. We need it now more than ever.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
A necessary evil.

And evil in the truest sense of the word.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by Tempest II)
One of convenient factors with Trident, being submarine based, it is almost impossible to locate in the open sea meaning that it's borderline impossible to destroy.
Air launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles and land based ICBMs are far more vulnerable to destruction before they're used.
Which also makes submarine-based nukes considerably safer from accidents. The fact that land based weapons could be destroyed in a pre-emptive strike requires they be put on a permanent state of readiness, to be fired within minutes if necessary before they're taken out. Trident doesn't need to be on such hair-trigger alert, and so there is more time to avoid mistakes.
0
reply
bubbie1235
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
Trident is good

there is no point putting ourselves in a worse volentry position
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (93)
16.61%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (58)
10.36%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (99)
17.68%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (84)
15%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (56)
10%
How can I be the best version of myself? (170)
30.36%

Watched Threads

View All