Trident (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Malaka
- Start date
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The general theory is you have it to make sure it isn't needed.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
If we don't waste it there we will waste it elsewhere, a lot of money for something you never want to use and if you do get no benefit from
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yes, we need it IMO. We will never use it but it is needed as a deterrent. If every nation scrapped their nukes I'd be all for scrapping trident, but we don't want to be one of the only superpowers not to have nuclear capability when there a number of crackpot countries that do.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. The threat of MAD has kept the peace for over 60 years.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The point is that it's a deterrent. In other words the only reason you don't need it is because you've got it. Stood up in the 60's and 70's, possibly even the 80's but I'm not so sure in this day and age. I wouldn't scrap it just yet but I don't think that we're that far away from it becoming a redundant deterrent.
Nick
Administrator
No I just mean have they said if it has deterred anything yet?
Obviously people would think "shit, better not" but have they lined it up and said "do one or else"
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Waste of money IMO. The cold war era has gone. The enemy know is the likes of ISIS and having nukes is zero deterrent to them.
How can we go to war with Iraq claiming (falsely) its because they have weapons of mass destruction, and go around telling other countries they shouldn't have nuclear weapons when we've got them ourselves?
How can we go to war with Iraq claiming (falsely) its because they have weapons of mass destruction, and go around telling other countries they shouldn't have nuclear weapons when we've got them ourselves?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Can we just pretend we've replaced it and spend the money on something else? Nobody will know because we will never use it, it's all in the implication.
Get rid. We don't need it. There are plenty of "first world" countries that don't have them. This historical fixation with having a strong military is for the dark ages. The likes of ISIS is the real threat, and using the military for peace keeping forces is surely in th best interest of the country (I don't mean Iraq).
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Keep it and use it on bloody Isis! Then they can all go to Heaven and shag 50 virgins each!
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Yes not only for MAD but for what the defence industry adds to economy.
However nuclear subs are these days in danger of becoming vulnerable to submersible hunter killer drones. So a rethink is needed for 20 years hence.
However nuclear subs are these days in danger of becoming vulnerable to submersible hunter killer drones. So a rethink is needed for 20 years hence.
vow
Well-Known Member
Whats "MAD"?
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Renewed but 40 Labour MPs didn't even turn up to vote, I bet they would have turned up if it was a vote on how to get more expenses, I don't know if the other parties had full turn outs.
Mutually assured destruction - basically the premise that if both sides have nuclear weapons peace will be kept as neither side will use them, as it would ultimately result in the destruction of both sides - but equally neither side will disarm for fear of opening themselves up to attack, which they couldn't counter.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Excuse me for digging this up but always worth a watch.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I am massively in favor of it. I agree with parliaments vote yesterday which I'm pleased was a land slide.
The best way to describe it is it's an insurance policy. I'm assuming everyone on here buys house insurance and that's because if your house burns down then you are insured and you haven't lost your house and money. Your house will never burn down but that 0.1% chance it does then you are covered. Trident and nuclear weapons are the same. It's an insurance policy. You will never use them but in that the worst case scenario happened then you can do something about it. It's a deterrent. It's meant to deter. Does it? I think so.
The best way to describe it is it's an insurance policy. I'm assuming everyone on here buys house insurance and that's because if your house burns down then you are insured and you haven't lost your house and money. Your house will never burn down but that 0.1% chance it does then you are covered. Trident and nuclear weapons are the same. It's an insurance policy. You will never use them but in that the worst case scenario happened then you can do something about it. It's a deterrent. It's meant to deter. Does it? I think so.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The money could be reinvested building schools and hospitals (which we desperately need) and creating more jobs in the process.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Don't worry, there's plenty of money for that now that we are leaving the EU....
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes. It's our misguided perception of our place in the world. This obsession with being a major power. Who gives a fuck? It doesn't benefit me or you in any way. It's an ego trip for politicians. The Germans have done OK without it.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
No but they are part of NATO and they have a big say in the build and use of nuclear weapons in what's called nuclear sharing. UK and France both have nuclear weapons for example very close to Germany.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
you could use that analogy to justify walking round with a machete or a gun.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We are members of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In fact very few countries aren't (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, South Sudan and India).
The stated aim of the treaty is nuclear disarmament. At present only the US, Russia, China, France and the UK officially have nuclear capabilities. It is known that India, Pakistan and North Korea also have them.
How does purchasing new nuclear weapons sit with that?
What are we targeting anyway? When we first had trident the perceived threat was from Russia as it was the cold war era. Now are biggest threat is the likes of IS, these weapons are useless against them, not as a deterrent or in actual use.
We aren't a superpower, we should stop pretending to be one.
The stated aim of the treaty is nuclear disarmament. At present only the US, Russia, China, France and the UK officially have nuclear capabilities. It is known that India, Pakistan and North Korea also have them.
How does purchasing new nuclear weapons sit with that?
What are we targeting anyway? When we first had trident the perceived threat was from Russia as it was the cold war era. Now are biggest threat is the likes of IS, these weapons are useless against them, not as a deterrent or in actual use.
We aren't a superpower, we should stop pretending to be one.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Thought that last night during the debate. The pro-nuclear speakers sounded very similar to gun lobbyists in the US after a shooting.
And interesting that those 5 countries are the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council - and also the 5 biggest arms dealers in the world. It's all about power and control, not defence
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
And let's not forget which countries sell arms to these 5....
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
I agree we should be taking whatever steps necessary to gather intel, equip our counter terrorism personnel, and protect our own boarders and citizens from radicals. However, if we didn't renew we'd be left with relying on France and the Yanks to ensure Putin keeps off european soil. And its a long term plan Dave, who knows what North Korea or Iran or any number of dodgy states will do in the next thirty years?