Trident nuclear deterrent renewal.

[alframsey]

I'm interested in what people on here think about the plans to replace the outgoing Trident Programme?

A few links about the subject:

http://www.cnduk.org/images/stories/briefings/trident/People_Not_Trident_report_CND_Mar14.pdf

http://www.york.ac.uk/media/politics/documents/research/MPs.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212745/20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/08/trident-renewal-survey-wmd-awareness-defence-spending

Personally I think I am against renewal of trident on mostly a moral level, I also think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

[russycarps]

Trident is one of the few things still keeping the uk at the "top table" of the world. Our politicians will never give up their manhood.

If there was a referendum: "should the uk keep its nuclear weapons" the Yes vote would win by a landslide I reckon.

[kaosmark2]

I'm against nuclear weapons, but even if the UK genuinely needed having them, why is Trident the only option? Various military advisers have said that the UK could spend 1/3 of the money that's going on renewing Trident on other alternative nukes and still have the same deterrent factor.

[alframsey]

I also think a lot of it comes down to the political establishment wanting to keep Britain at the top table but surely there comes to a point where we realise nuclear weapons are morally indefensible? I'm not sure it'd be a clear cut win to keep the deterrent in the even of a referendum either, polls consistently show those aged 18 to 40 (I think) are in favour of scrapping the deterrent. Something like 60% of those who answer want trident scrapped to help cut the deficit.

For me though it's a question of morals, not numbers or power, and I remember reading somewhere that "a civilised state has no need to extend influence beyond it's borders". I would agree with that in terms of military might, maybe not culturally though.

[eFestivals]

No.

[Spindles]

I think the views represented here would be broadly typical around the nation and, as Russy says, a referendum would be a resounding "no" to trident.

As for why we stick with an unnecessarily expensive and less advanced system than the money can buy is probably down to the monumental amount of corruption involved, which doubtless makes Starbucks, Amazon et al's tax dodges pale into insignificance.

[eFestivals]

Do you give no weight to the "mutually assured destruction" argument having avoided further "world wars" between the major nations ?

I don't.

The threat of the USSR was something that was cooked up as a way to help all the justifications for nukes to be sustained.

A quick study of Russian history and Stalin's doings should have anyone with half a brain convinced that there was never any meaningful military threat from the USSR.

The political threat - the threat to the rich's money - did however require firm action. Lies of how nasty it would be to have proper human rights, and how those reds under the beds would murder your granny. A whole new branch of economics even had to be cooked up to fight this (and in case it passed you by, the bill came in 5 years ago).

It was either that, or the powerful suddenly had a moment of enlightenment, and decided that the oiks did deserve healthcare, jobs, fair wages, decent housing, and welfare support after all. All the things they'd previously been happy to deprive them of for their own wealth.

The reverse of that fleeting social chapter of UK history shows what it really was.

[eFestivals]

We all know your warped view on World History

No, you know your own ignorance on world history.

[eFestivals]

Anyway moving on... Its not just about Russia etc... Its about China and North Korea... India and Pakistan... and so on... and mainly its about the future and not the past. And it also might one day be about not backing down to American aggression. Today's friends can quite easily be tomorrows enemies.

which non-nuke state has been threatened with nukes and backed down?

Which nuke state has been threatened with nukes and backed down?

The answer to both is "none at all". And so, to date, nukes have had no meaningful military or political effect. Zero. Nothing. Nada.

[eFestivals]

That is a stupid claim. By simply having them the threat is there. China, Russia and North Korea are under threat as much as we are from them.

and yet there's no meaningful threat to them from us, and there's no meaningful threat from them to us.

Perhaps it's not about threats at all. Perhaps it's about maintaining the military budgets that the US's economy became addicted to in WW2? Just a thought.

Lies and bullshit. You sound like the Yes campaign for Scottish Independence

Lies and bullshit? PMSL. ;lol:

It's you who have swallowed the propaganda booklet whole.

Or do you think that it's only the horrible Nazis who did propaganda, and that at the end of WW2 all propaganda stopped?

FFS.

The justification for nukes was the supposed threat from the USSR - and yet there has never been that threat.

[eFestivals]

UK has signed up to the NPT which states a no first use policy.

complete and utter bullshit.

The UK is a member of NATO, which refuses to give a no-first-use guarantee.

[eFestivals]

PS: nothing of the NPT is about first use or not.

But it's me that's giving the lies and bullshit, not the person spouting un-facts and calling others the liars.

If you care to read here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_Kingdom

... you'll see that only two countries have said "no first use" - China (one of those "threatening" states you talked about ) and India.

The UK has a first use policy.

But you just keep on talking authoritatively about this Barry, because you know what you're talking about and the rest of us are liars.

[Uncle Liam]

As if the NPT actually means anything.

[russycarps]

UK has signed up to the NPT which states a no first use policy. So our threats are always about hitting back. We wouldn't issue a threat to attack first.

Interestingly your friends in China Neil have not agreed to such a limitation....

Its surprising how little you understand the issue Neil. Maybe go talk to your mate down the pub with all the nuclear secrets

[eFestivals]

No but they are nasty bastards!

yes, and the west loves fluffy pink kittens.

[eFestivals]

Ah I think there are point where you just have to put your hands up and admit you are wrong.

These are one of those moments

*Don't expect to see Neil doing it. He is always right

To be right, you have to know what you're talking about.

You should try it sometime.

[eFestivals]

Nope... but I think China wins...

yes, it's such an aggressive nation with designs on other territories it doesn't even have a meaningful navy.

[eFestivals]

The aggression within its own border is enough surely...

PMSL .... so no country is allowed to police itself? PMSL.

The "aggression" you talk of has fewer people (proportionally) imprisoned within its borders than happens in the wonderful USA and UK.

Why's that then?

Edited May 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

All you know is your own dogma

No. I've just proven that I know facts, and that you know bullshit.

But never mind, eh? You just keep telling yourself that those who know the facts have dogma and that those who know nothing like you know everything.

FFS.

[russycarps]

There may be many things to criticise china about, but they are not an expansionist power.

Obviously the western media would have you believe they are an aggressive nation, over things like the diaoyu islands - despite them being chinese territory for centuries until the japanese invaded, and were then gifted them by america after ww2.

Edited May 7, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

and you'd be first in line Barry.

Because there's nothing more dangerous than stupidity.

[eFestivals]

At least you are being honest about this communist utopia you want for us all!

You're not even capable of understanding a joke, are you?

[kaosmark2]

There may be many things to criticise china about, but they are not an expansionist power.

Obviously the western media would have you believe they are an aggressive nation, over things like the diaoyu islands - despite them being chinese territory for centuries until the japanese invaded, and were then gifted them by america after ww2.

[eFestivals]

I think this is a fair point...

It's the truth. You've clearly fallen for the propaganda that the west is wonder45ful and everyone the west says is our enemy is our enemy.

There was a recent situation much like that, and you supported the propaganda and the war.

And you were wrong then too.

Oh dear.

[eFestivals]

Russia are very clearly an expansionist power.

They're really REALLY not!!!!

Read a bit of Russian history, and you'll find the reality is a VERY lot different to what the propaganda would like you to believe.

The Russian reality doesn't fall well onto the likes of Ukraine, but that's not about Russia being "expansionist". It's about the same as many in the UK will feel about Scotland if it votes for indy, with an added 30M+ deaths in the mix.