Trident renewal: good or bad?

[stevie_b]

I thought I'd start a debate thread about the nuclear deterrent. Should Trident be renewed?

[Dnk]

This should be interesting

[johnny g]

Yes. Nuclear threat is only deterred by the threat of retaliation. So long as people like that nutjob Kim Jong Un have their finger on the button, I feel most would feel more comfortable with us having it rather than disbanding it.

I would move it from Scotland to England though, as Scotland want out...

[el_bandido]

Since there isn't an option for unilateral nuclear disarmament, Trident needs to be renewed. I'm also heavily involved in bits of this industry so it is good for my own interests that it's been renewed.

[j_jza80]

Yes

 

Better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them. The fact that we're deciding now about a weapons system that will enter service in 15 years shows that if we lose the capability, it is not something we can easily or quickly regain.

 

The world is more uncertain than it has ever been in my lifetime, and as none of us know what the future will bring, we should constantly be striving for the best, and planning for the worst.

 

However... I think that the renewal should come with a pledge to redouble, and reinvigorate our efforts to the cause of multilateral disarmament.

 

And I think we should be offering Scotland a choice as to whether they want to house these weapons or not. There are good reasons why Faslane is an ideal home, but if Scotland really don't want them, then they should come to England. But if so, then all future ship building contracts should also come to England.

 

Personally, I would have no issues with our nuclear fleet being based on the Humber

[cered]

We need it, you're less likely to shoot someone if they have a gun and could shoot back...

 

I think keep the trident programme but update it, cheaper to run, more efficient, strap Theresa May to the submarine's hull etc...

 

Ideally if we all scrapped our (ours being our own and every other monkey with a warhead or 600) nuclear arms and fought wars with guns like the good old days we'd be fine

[j_jza80]

Ideally if we all scrapped out nuclear arms and fought wars with guns like the good old days we'd be fine

 

How would you go about reducing the costs though?

 

The Lib Dems idea of using cruise missiles instead of ballistic ones isnt practical, theUS already has directed energy weapons capable of shooting them down in flight, and Russia and China are in the late stages of developing them.

 

I don't think the costs are too bad considering, the entire 30 year lifespan cost of the Trident replacement will be equivalent to less than 2 years NHS costs... Plus, we're obliged to spend that money on defense one way or another as part of NATO.

[cered]

How would you go about reducing the costs though?

 

The Lib Dems idea of using cruise missiles instead of ballistic ones isnt practical, theUS already has directed energy weapons capable of shooting them down in flight, and Russia and China are in the late stages of developing them.

 

I don't think the costs are too bad considering, the entire 30 year lifespan cost of the Trident replacement will be equivalent to less than 2 years NHS costs... Plus, we're obliged to spend that money on defense one way or another as part of NATO.

 

Not sure... I'm literally not a rocket scientist flol

[Scooter]

Why don't we just 'say' we've updated them, then you get a deterrent for free! Hell perhaps old Trident doesn't even work If we in the West can't be sure Saddam had them, how can North Korea etc find out we don't!

[Marcus GTE]

Not much of a deterrent if the purpose of it is the promise to shoot back at someone after we are all gone, by then the damage is done.

Surely there could be an agreement with allies like the USA and France that if the UK is attacked then they retaliate for us, and in return contribute something to their programs or alternatively return to strategic silos, which would be significant savings over a missile system that we are already relyant on America providing us with.

 

There are calls to have Trident removed from Scotland, I support that. And the comment about withholding ship building contracts seems like playground politics coming from an adult. Never mind that they have been based there for a generation, discount that service in a heartbeat, and not to meantion that all the previous nuclear subs are banked up in Scotland awaiting their reactors to be decommissioned and radio active waste to be disposed of.

 

I read that the proposed site in Portsmouth is it? Was deemed not suitable on the grounds that it was too close to a populated area. Interesting, Glasgow is one of the UK's biggest city's and it's OK for it to be 30 miles away.

 

£100bn+ could be used much better imo on public services that are on their knees after years of Tory cuts and to equip us to better combat terrorism which is the real threat right now.

[JasonR24]

Nuclear deterrent, yes

 

Trident, No

 

There must be a more cost efficient method than using submarines?

[j_jza80]

Not much of a deterrent if the purpose of it is the promise to shoot back at someone after we are all gone, by then the damage is done.

Surely there could be an agreement with allies like the USA and France that if the UK is attacked then they retaliate for us, and in return contribute something to their programs or alternatively return to strategic silos, which would be significant savings over a missile system that we are already relyant on America providing us with.

 

There are calls to have Trident removed from Scotland, I support that. And the comment about withholding ship building contracts seems like playground politics coming from an adult. Never mind that they have been based there for a generation, discount that service in a heartbeat, and not to meantion that all the previous nuclear subs are banked up in Scotland awaiting their reactors to be decommissioned and radio active waste to be disposed of.

 

I read that the proposed site in Portsmouth is it? Was deemed not suitable on the grounds that it was too close to a populated area. Interesting, Glasgow is one of the UK's biggest city's and it's OK for it to be 30 miles away.

 

£100bn+ could be used much better imo on public services that are on their knees after years of Tory cuts and to equip us to better combat terrorism which is the real threat right now.

 

A deterrent, by its definition, deters people from launching first.

 

Why should it fall to America to keep Europe safe? And why should we outsource our defence to the French? Looking at the dire state of the French armed forces, I don't think that is a good idea at all.

 

If these new subs aren't going to be housed in Scotland, why should we build them there? Surely the socially responsible thing to do is to provide the reward of the work to those who will bear the responsibility for housing them? Interesting that you choose to use the term 'playgroud politics', because that is exactly how the SNP were being during this debate yesterday. It was embarrassing to watch. They were rude, ill informed, repeated the same points over and over again, intervened at every opportunity, but largely refused interventions themselves, and made a point of clapping after each SNP speech, purely to wind up the speaker.

 

And we are obliged to spend that money on defence, it is part of the NATO treaty, and our international obligations. So even if we don't replace trident, that money can only go on weapons.

[j_jza80]

Nuclear deterrent, yes

 

Trident, No

 

There must be a more cost efficient method than using submarines?

 

Such as? See may earlier point about directed energy systems. This rules out aircraft, drones, cruise missiles etc. Space based systems are rightly banned. Land based silos are pointless alone, especially with our relatively small number of weapons, as they will be taken out during a first strike.

 

I would also prefer that we didn't spend so much on this, and used some of the money to bolster our conventional defences, but I just can't see any system that can rival a submarine based ballistic missile system.

[Al Massey]

Yes it needs renewing.

It's a deterrent and a very good weapon system.

 

I do think it should be moved from Scotland.

 

Oh and ship and sub building too, since Scotland (well the SNP) are advocating for another referendum, they will have no need for the billions being spent on trident and the area of the jobs.

[Konrad]

Such as? See may earlier point about directed energy systems. This rules out aircraft, drones, cruise missiles etc. Space based systems are rightly banned. Land based silos are pointless alone, especially with our relatively small number of weapons, as they will be taken out during a first strike.

 

Why do you think land based silos are pointless? This is used as a deterrent, means that we assume other side will not shoot first. If they do, you always have a time for counter attack, no matter if it will be from silo or sub - besides after first wave subs will have nowhere to come back anyway. Country like England would be turned into desert after 4-5 well measured strikes. I guess army should focus more on a prevention than amount of missiles.

[j_jza80]

Because land based silos are fixed, and easily spotted by satellite. They work as a part of a full spectrum deterrent including air launched and naval based systems, but alone they do no guarantee a response, and are therefore a poor deterrent.

[Al Massey]

Land based silos are easy targets for sabotage and espionage.

Not really a deterrent when the enemy know exactly what you have and where it is.

 

And trident isn't just a deterrent, it does have countermeasures and so does our country.

 

So it's not a case of terminator judgement day when every nation gets blown to bits.

[Scooter]

Indeed, does anyone we'd consider mad enough to even contemplate a strike actually have any nuclear subs? ie if they are dangerous/to be respected without any why wouldn't we. Basically can we do without the mobile and unknown location advantages of a sub based system?

[Wez]

We do need a Nuclear deterrent, the world isnt exactly stable.

 

Only yesterday it came to light that a large stockpile of the US nukes are located in a rented base in Turkey

 

Although I do have some questions over Trident, the main being we cannot actually use without the US agreeing / approving, not sure who would sign up to such agreements, surely if its our system we have the right to use as we see fit.

 

Was nice to hear May say she would push the button if needed, no hesitation, Corbyn once again thinking the world is all flowers and love and would never dream of using it, what a complete plonker

[stevie_b]

Since there isn't an option for unilateral nuclear disarmament, Trident needs to be renewed.

 

Good point, I forgot to add an option for unilateral disarmament. But if I did, I reckon most people would vote for it. But is it a realistic option? Way before that can happen, the UK (and other nuclear nations) will still face the question of whether to renew or retire their nuclear capability. Countries can try to achieve disarmament by continuing to hold nukes (thereby prompting a dialog of "I'll put my ICBMs down if you put yours down"). Or countries can lead by example by disarming, and hope that others follow suit. But countries will still face one of the 3 choices in the poll.

 

I don't think this genie can be put back in its bottle. The US and probably others will still want to be carrying the most powerful weapon, just in case North Korea/ISIS/etc develop a capability in the future.

[Wez]

I don't think this genie can be put back in its bottle. The US and probably others will still want to be carrying the most powerful weapon, just in case North Korea/ISIS/etc develop a capability in the future.

 

100% agree, even if it was agreed that we all disarm can we really be sure, I dont believe so, sadly the tech is here to stay and cannot be undone.

[stevie_b]

Although I do have some questions over Trident, the main being we cannot actually use without the US agreeing / approving, not sure who would sign up to such agreements, surely if its our system we have the right to use as we see fit.

I didn't know that, can you quote the source for the info? It seems strange: I thought the Trident subs had standing instructions which meant that if they deduce armaggeddon is underway, they have permission to launch.

 

We can't ask the US for permission, if the US no longer exists.

[j_jza80]

Although I do have some questions over Trident, the main being we cannot actually use without the US agreeing / approving, not sure who would sign up to such agreements, surely if its our system we have the right to use as we see fit.

 

I think I'm right in saying that we don't need permission, they are totally under our control, but we are supposed to inform the US before launch.

[j_jza80]

100% agree, even if it was agreed that we all disarm can we really be sure, I dont believe so, sadly the tech is here to stay and cannot be undone.

 

I think eventually they will become obsolete, as advancements in sensor technology and laser / railgun weapons happen.

 

To be fair though, some of the conventional weapons available today are still horrifying, look at the US MOAB and Russian FOAB can do

[Dnk]

My concern is the nutters of this world going down a different route and instead of blowing people up or shooting them

they poison them on mass