Trident renewal

[Sharpe's Fox]

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader has energised the debate on the UK's approach to nuclear weapons and the unilaterist stance so though it would be a good idea to make a thread in the new sub forum on that debate.

My own view is that spending an obscene amount of money on creating the latest mass killing machines is wrong, has a minimal effect on the security of Britain (and would extend that to the wider NATO protected area) and has become nothing more than a political stance in neoliberal geopolitics.

[Strokes]

I wouldn't cry if they were not renewed but I would prefer it if they were. Better to have and not need than, need and not have but on that token if we need nukes, then the world is pretty fùcked.

[stevelcfc]

It should be pointed out the debate at present is not about our nuclear weaponry. The decision the needs to be made centres around the submarines that hold the missiles, that is what is currently up for renewal not should we have nuclear weapons. The Vanguard-class subs have been in service since 1993, and should a new class be commissioned they won't be ready till 2028 at the earliest. The missiles are good until the 2040's.

[SMX11]

I'm not sure the current trident system is worthwhile, is there not a more cost effective means of a nuclear deterrent? 

[Trav Le Bleu]

I'm not sure the current trident system is worthwhile, is there not a more cost effective means of a nuclear deterrent?

Yeah, suitcase bombs.

[Larry_LCFC]

The more money spent on our defence systems / military the better as far as I'm concerned. Should be increased in this day and age, not reduced.

[leicsmac]

I wouldn't cry if they were not renewed but I would prefer it if they were. Better to have and not need than, need and not have but on that token if we need nukes, then the world is pretty fùcked.

 

This.

 

I've spouted this argument on here a few times whenever this topic comes up, and it still remains the same: a nuclear war will never been limited nor winnable as escalation in inevitable, so if we or anyone else are ever in a position when they're going to be used then we're screwed anyway.

 

So as long as at just two nations willing to set them off have enough of them and unless the sole purpose of them is to set them off as a final fvck you fireworks display before the end of the world, then they don't have any useful purpose being in the UK armoury.

 

 

The more money spent on our defence systems / military the better as far as I'm concerned. Should be increased in this day and age, not reduced.

 

Do we really want to spend money on an arms race in this day and age? Against who, exactly? Which nation state is knocking on our door and threatening to kick our head in?

[Larry_LCFC]

This.

 

I've spouted this argument on here a few times whenever this topic comes up, and it still remains the same: a nuclear war will never been limited nor winnable as escalation in inevitable, so if we or anyone else are ever in a position when they're going to be used then we're screwed anyway.

 

So as long as at just two nations willing to set them off have enough of them and unless the sole purpose of them is to set them off as a final fvck you fireworks display before the end of the world, then they don't have any useful purpose being in the UK armoury.

 

 

 

Do we really want to spend money on an arms race in this day and age? Against who, exactly? Which nation state is knocking on our door and threatening to kick our head in?

Who knows what the world will look like in 10 years. Russia, N Korea, Isis. I'm not saying we will be at war, but I rather be fully prepared. Any reduction is military is just ridiculous imo.

[leicsmac]

Who knows what the world will look like in 10 years. Russia, N Korea, Isis. I'm not saying we will be at war, but I rather be fully prepared. Any reduction is military is just ridiculous imo.

 

I'd say, from a viewpoint of actual, credible and significant threats to the life of the UK, it'll look pretty much as it does now, viz. none.

 

We could never compete with Russia conventionally or from a nuclear standpoint, the Norks are way too busy waving their dick at the South and at Japan to be bothered about the UK (and I speak as someone who lives around 30 miles from the DMZ) and Daesh aren't going to carry out any operations outside the Middle East barring a few nutters waving AK's and the occasional IED - potentially nasty, but life will go on.

 

I can certainly see your point of view, but the UK military seems fine to deal with both existing and reasonable potential threats exactly as it is - barring the nuclear option (see above).

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The more money spent on our defence systems / military the better as far as I'm concerned. Should be increased in this day and age, not reduced.

Even if you hold that view, is there not some sense in considering what the best way of spending that money is? Would the money in trident be better used in other ways to give us a range of options for defence rather than put it into one very narrow form?

[SMX11]

Even if you hold that view, is there not some sense in considering what the best way of spending that money is? Would the money in trident be better used in other ways to give us a range of options for defence rather than put it into one very narrow form?

This defence procurement needs a total overhaul. The amount of money wasted on hardware that doesn't work is incredible. I'm sure those responsible haven't got the chop either.

[Stadt]

It's a bit simplistic but as a deterrent, it's done it's job so far.

[BlueSi13]

This.

 

I've spouted this argument on here a few times whenever this topic comes up, and it still remains the same: a nuclear war will never been limited nor winnable as escalation in inevitable, so if we or anyone else are ever in a position when they're going to be used then we're screwed anyway.

 

So as long as at just two nations willing to set them off have enough of them and unless the sole purpose of them is to set them off as a final fvck you fireworks display before the end of the world, then they don't have any useful purpose being in the UK armoury.

 

 

 

Do we really want to spend money on an arms race in this day and age? Against who, exactly? Which nation state is knocking on our door and threatening to kick our head in?

 

 

You haven't been aware that Russian bombers have made countless incursions into British and NATO airspace over the past 18 months?  That Russian submarines have been spotted not far from the British mainland?

 

Either way It's been done to death on here but in a world where Russia is testings NATO's resolve across Eastern Europe, where China is looking to bully South East Asia into submitting to its control, where Pakistan is becoming increasingly unstable under Islamist extremist pressure, and where Iran and North Korea will very shortly become nuclear powers, I personally see absolutely no point in stripping ourselves of our one and only cast iron guarantee of security.  Especially for such a small cost.  It will cost around £23bn to procure and will cost around £2bn a year to maintain.  For perspective Britain's foreign aid budget is £12bn a year.

 

Sure I would love to live in a world where we never needed such weapons but sadly if you want to make absolutely sure that WW3 kicks off tomorrow, strip the world of nuclear weapons.  If you want world peace, give everybody nukes.

[leicsmac]

You haven't been aware that Russian bombers have made countless incursions into British and NATO airspace over the past 18 months?  That Russian submarines have been spotted not far from the British mainland?

 

Either way It's been done to death on here but in a world where Russia is testings NATO's resolve across Eastern Europe, where China is looking to bully South East Asia into submitting to its control, where Pakistan is becoming increasingly unstable under Islamist extremist pressure, and where Iran and North Korea will very shortly become nuclear powers, I personally see absolutely no point in stripping ourselves of our one and only cast iron guarantee of security.  Especially for such a small cost.  It will cost around £23bn to procure and will cost around £2bn a year to maintain.  For perspective Britain's foreign aid budget is £12bn a year.

 

Sure I would love to live in a world where we never needed such weapons but sadly if you want to make absolutely sure that WW3 kicks off tomorrow, strip the world of nuclear weapons.  If you want world peace, give everybody nukes.

 

I'm fully aware of Russia rattling the sabre...it's something they've been doing for years. But, as I said, we can't compete with them conventionally and if things got to the stage where our nuclear deterrent was actually required...well, we and everyone else would have lost already.

 

I totally agree that nuclear weapons are a necessity for keeping the peace on a large scale in this day and age (they're probably the reason there has been no full-scale world war since WW2) but to maintain that equilibrium you only need two big powers with just enough nukes to cause Armageddon and reasonably opposed ideologies - as, like I said, escalation would be inevitable once a single nuclear weapon was used. No additional proliferation is necessary, apart from making a faux show regarding 'deterrent' and using as a bargaining chip, when that is purely illusory and the situation posed above would be enough to maintain the peace.

[Finnegan]

The more money spent on our defence systems / military the better as far as I'm concerned. Should be increased in this day and age, not reduced.

Dear god.

[Guest MattP]

It should be pointed out the debate at present is not about our nuclear weaponry. The decision the needs to be made centres around the submarines that hold the missiles, that is what is currently up for renewal not should we have nuclear weapons. The Vanguard-class subs have been in service since 1993, and should a new class be commissioned they won't be ready till 2028 at the earliest. The missiles are good until the 2040's.

 

This, it's amazing how many people speaking about this don't even know what trident is.

 

I saw banners on Saturday saying "NHS not Trident"

[Rincewind]

I may be wrong but I think that means spend money on curing people than invest in various ways of  killing them.

[adam]

I'm all for the renewal as I'm a submariner and work on the trident system. Get that money spent Cameron

[leicsmac]

This, it's amazing how many people speaking about this don't even know what trident is.

 

I saw banners on Saturday saying "NHS not Trident"

 

The weapons would be no good without the delivery system. No subs, no Trident missiles, unless you could find a way of firing them from some other platform. So I would say the discussions are reasonably intertwined, though as you say there is a certain lack of education on the matter.

 

I'm all for the renewal as I'm a submariner and work on the trident system. Get that money spent Cameron

 

Ah, vested interest. I'd be all for throwing as much money as possible at various space programmes for exactly the same reason.

 

I wish you luck.

[adam]

The weapons would be no good without the delivery system. No subs, no Trident missiles, unless you could find a way of firing them from some other platform. So I would say the discussions are reasonably intertwined, though as you say there is a certain lack of education on the matter.

Ah, vested interest. I'd be all for throwing as much money as possible at various space programmes for exactly the same reason.

I wish you luck.

Exactly mac, I will have left though by the time the new boats are in service .

[Rincewind]

OAP's should get a 50% rise in pensions. Starting in November. No need to rush it.

[Thracian]

I may be wrong but I think that means spend money on curing people than invest in various ways of  killing them.

I may be wrong but I think that means spend money on curing people than invest in various ways of  killing them.

You are wrong. Trident is not meant to be a means of killing people but a means of deterring others from killing us, as we've needed to do for centuries, and no less now than ever in terms of threat for all that sound defence will need to amount to much more than Trident.

Furthermore, for all your emotional idealism, the NHS can't have all the money. There are other things need doing as well and one of them is trying to keep this country as save and secure as we can make it.

We could actually do much more towards that end but people like you are among the thousands who'd even act against non-violent self-protection like closing our borders or being far more vigilant in opening them to a few of those who might make a worthwhile contribution - on the strictest terms.

You and others seem to have a reckless desire to play with the security of this nation and the results are already apparent in the security cameras on every main road and so many other changes that have made security a major modern industry. And that's just for starters.

I see nothing in your logic but a naive idealism.

[leicsmac]

You are wrong. Trident is not meant to be a means of killing people but a means of deterring others from killing us, as we've needed to do for centuries, and no less now than ever in terms of threat for all that sound defence will need to amount to much more than Trident.

Furthermore, for all your emotional idealism, the NHS can't have all the money. There are other things need doing as well and one of them is trying to keep this country as save and secure as we can make it.

We could actually do much more towards that end but people like you are among the thousands who'd even act against non-violent self-protection like closing our borders or being far more vigilant in opening them to a few of those who might make a worthwhile contribution - on the strictest terms.

You and others seem to have a reckless desire to play with the security of this nation and the results are already apparent in the security cameras on every main road and so many other changes that have made security a major modern industry. And that's just for starters.

I see nothing in your logic but a naive idealism.

 

The 'deterrent' supplied by Trident is purely illusory, for the reasons I stated above.

 

I know you mean to come across as savvy, preferring realpolitik over 'naive idealism' as you put it..but in the long run the course of action, the fearful isolationism and distrust you suggest the UK and every other country follows, could end up having a very, very bad result.

[Guest MattP]

The weapons would be no good without the delivery system. No subs, no Trident missiles, unless you could find a way of firing them from some other platform. So I would say the discussions are reasonably intertwined, though as you say there is a certain lack of education on the matter.

 

Sat on the top of Scafell Pike, pointing at Scotland with "Chat Shit Get Banged" written on them.

[leicsmac]

Sat on the top of Scafell Pike, pointing at Scotland with "Chat Shit Get Banged" written on them.

We need a photo manip for this.