We should get rid of Trident.

[Monkeys Fist 38585]

If you mean WWII the Germans never actually tried to invade.

I was going to post that earlier, but I couldn't be arsed explaining it to him.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I was going to post that earlier, but I couldn't be arsed explaining it to him.

Of course they planned to invade. That's what operation Sea Lion was all about.

[Monkeys Fist 38585]

"Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and never carried out"

 

Pedantry- plan was made.

Reality- Britain was not in danger of invasion.

[PaddockLad 14528]

You might also want to look and see what the Royal Navy may have done sat off Yorkshire to any invading German fleet CT...Brittania rules the waves isnt just a line from a song

[JJ 0]

Must have been nuclear weapons that stopped Operation Sea Lion.

 

What? They hadn't been invented yet? Never mind then...

[Dr Gloom 19744]

The reality is we will never use trident under any circumstances. The reason it's being renewed is so we can keep our seat around the table alongside the big world powers like we're still an important player on the world stage when in reality we're not. The British empire no longer spans a quarter of the globe. The yanks have our back. I repeat, there really are no circumstances where trident would ever be deployed. The leftie bullshit CT alludes to is supported by most defence industry analysts.

 

Much better to spend the defence budget on adapting to the new threat - fighting and helping train and support local forces struggling to deal with Islamist terrorist insurgents. Helping the Nigerians deal with Boko Haram would be a good start.

 

Meanwhile the billions saved by not reinvesting in an archaic nuclear deterrent, which was designed for the Cold War and is largely irrelevant in modern warfare, could more or less wipe out the budget deficit over night.

[Monkeys Fist 38585]

But, if we wiped the deficit, the Tories would need to find a new excuse to screw the populus.

[Renton 17633]

Meanwhile the billions saved by not reinvesting in an archaic nuclear deterrent, which was designed for the Cold War and is largely irrelevant in modern warfare, could more or less wipe out the budget deficit over night.

Are you sure about that? Source please.

 

It feels wrong but I'm with CT on this one, having formerly been a supporter of CND. There is no doubt in my mind that the deterrence of nuclear war prevented WW3 kicking off in Europe. The world is more uncertain now than it has been since the cold war ended. With the recent behaviour of Russia and the threat of Iran and North Korea, I think continued investment in nuclear deterrence is of paramount importance. Whether that be Trident or not, I don't know.

 

Yes, of course we hope they won't be used, that is their entire point. But the prospect of multilateral disarmament isn't going to happen, and I think the concept of unilateral disarmament died in the 1980s.

[NJS 3960]

I still can't see any scenario where it would either be used or where it would deter anyone from doing anything.

[Renton 17633]

It's to act as a deterrent against someone, principally the Russians, overwhelming us with conventional forces. If they swept through western Europe I believe it is plausible nuclear weapons would be used pre-emptively. This is what gave the Warsaw pact pause for thought imo.

 

Even if you can't imagine a present day scenario where they would deter conflict though, how confident are you about predicting the future? Because once you scrap them there is no going back.

[ewerk 26192]

It's to act as a deterrent against someone, principally the Russians, overwhelming us with conventional forces. If they swept through western Europe I believe it is plausible nuclear weapons would be used pre-emptively. This is what gave the Warsaw pact pause for thought imo.

 

Even if you can't imagine a present day scenario where they would deter conflict though, how confident are you about predicting the future? Because once you scrap them there is no going back.

 

And you believe that USA and France would stand idly by while the Russians take over Europe?

[Renton 17633]

 

And you believe that USA and France would stand idly by while the Russians take over Europe?

And you believe France should have the only deterrence in western Europe and we should otherwise rely on a fading super power? Really?

[Dr Gloom 19744]

the nuclear deterrent exists whether we have a fleet of nuclear armed subs or not though doesn't it. we don't need to be a nuclear player ourselves anymore for that to be the case - thanks to strong ties with the US.

 

according to this report, published by a commission set up by the British American Security Information Council, and led by Professor Keith Hartley, a leading defence economist, scrapping trident would save £83.5bn - or £1.86bn per year up until 2062.

 

the study also found that jobs at risk could be transferred to alternative defence projects.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/21/trident-nuclear-missiles-savings

 

ok, it wouldn't wipe out the deficit overnight, i was wrong there, but the savings suggested in that study are substantial. and we're talking about saving billions on something we don't need to invest in

[ewerk 26192]

And you believe France should have the only deterrence in western Europe and we should otherwise rely on a fading super power? Really?

 

It only takes one nuke.

 

I think the days of the Russians hoping to conquer the whole of Europe are over. We're living in different times.

[NJS 3960]

Having notional control of a few subs and being a aircraft carrier for the US are no different IMO - any "deterrence" comes from being friends with America.

 

As for immediacy in response to changing threats, again the yanks could supply anything needed.

[Renton 17633]

The UK is the 5th richest country in the world by GDP and are a historic nuclear power. US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and soon Iran all have nuclear capability. I appreciate your arguments against us retaining our deterrence but don't assume it is faulty thinking to disagree.

[NJS 3960]

I just think its a waste of money. Then again having disagreed with every deployment of UK armed forces since WWII, I think the armed forces in general are a vast waste of money and goes back to the original notion of cock waving.

[ewerk 26192]

We're the 5th richest country by GDP yet have millions using food banks. I have no moral obligation to having nuclear weapons but when the government is constantly telling us that cuts need to be made then they should start with luxury items like Trident.

[Renton 17633]

 

It only takes one nuke.

 

I think the days of the Russians hoping to conquer the whole of Europe are over. We're living in different times.

Of course we are. But how old were you in 1988? Did you foresee the events of the following year? The world is entirely unpredictable, better to have all bases covered imo.

[Renton 17633]

We're the 5th richest country by GDP yet have millions using food banks. I have no moral obligation to having nuclear weapons but when the government is constantly telling us that cuts need to be made then they should start with luxury items like Trident.

Food banks are a disgrace, but the uneven distribution of wealth in the UK has Fuck all to do with Trident, which will come out the defence budget.

[ewerk 26192]

It's a bloody expensive insurance policy.

[Renton 17633]

I think less expensive alternatives should be looked at, although on the face of it a submarine deterrent seems the most failsafe.

 

This is the issue which will screw the Labour SNP relationship most I reckon.

[Dr Gloom 19744]

We're the 5th richest country by GDP yet have millions using food banks. I have no moral obligation to having nuclear weapons but when the government is constantly telling us that cuts need to be made then they should start with luxury items like Trident.

 

exactly.

[The Fish 8950]

Don't need the RAF as a separate entity either.

 

Just Drones and Spooks.

[Gemmill 34190]

It's all gonna become immaterial in 20 years time when global warming surpasses 2 degrees and the shit starts to really hit the fan with the effects of climate change. We should be redirecting the trident money at renewable energy along with the rest of the planet instead of sleepwalking to a toasty oblivion.