Poll: Do you believe the UK should have its own Nuclear Deterrent?

[Bloomfield]

so why not just limit everyone to not having nukes and be done with it.

That's the problem, we can't just say no one can have nukes (well, we can, but it's not going so well ), so we "need" them to ensure anyone willing to use them knows that their country will be nuked back.

I imagine most people would be happy getting rid of nukes as long as no other country had them (and there was some way to prove that they weren't developing them in secret), but that isn't the case atm .

 

[MrMoonX]

Trident especially the £100bn cost is so stupid, the government are crippling sick and poor people but oh here's a £100bn for some stupid weapons that we don't need anymore as the Cold War ended 20 odd years ago

 

[bsoltan]

I'm all for getting rid of all nuclear weapons, I understand that governments and military think that they are useful as a deterrent. However in actual fact is anyone going to launch one?

Does anyone want to be 'responsible' for the next Hiroshima. I know that the argument is that it was necessary for ending a war, but anything used now would be to start one.

It doesn't stop the threat of terrorism which seems to be the biggest threat rather than invasion by another country.

It is a crazy cost and a weapon that causes so much destruction it shouldn't be legal.

I say UK should make a stand and be one of the first countries to decomission all nuclear weapons.

 

[Things change I've changed]

I class myself as a 'lefty' but whether we like it or not military strength is still an important factor for our standing in the international community, I vote it stays, I just don't think it's time to give them up yet.

 

[FoxEye]

This thread needs a poll. It's looking like a lot more of us would prefer to give up nuclear weapons than would keep them.

 

[ilcp]

how cool would it be if we gave it up and then the 100£ billion was shared amongst everyone in UK?

 

[sid]

Well with north korea threatening to launch one, now would be the time to need it, if ever.

 

[StriderX]

Well with north korea threatening to launch one, now would be the time to need it, if ever.

Yes because North Korea always delivers on their threats, that's validation enough surely.


Nope.

 

[kitkat9933]

This thread needs a poll. It's looking like a lot more of us would prefer to give up nuclear weapons than would keep them.

Im guessing a mod needs to start a poll?

 

[Trifid]

how cool would it be if we gave it up and then the 100£ billion was shared amongst everyone in UK?

I'd rather donate £1500 and keep Trident.

On another point, I thought it was meant to be a global nuclear deterrent? That range is a bit short for hitting NK isn't it?

 

[StriderX]

I'd rather donate £1500 and keep Trident.

On another point, I thought it was meant to be a global nuclear deterrent? That range is a bit short for hitting NK isn't it?

You would donate £1500 to keep a US missile?

Wow, why even have an army, lets just have missiles.

 

[kitkat9933]

I'd rather donate £1500 and keep Trident.

On another point, I thought it was meant to be a global nuclear deterrent? That range is a bit short for hitting NK isn't it?

I'm pretty sure the Vanguard sub currently on instant strike duty is somewhere further east, nearer all the potential targets.

 

[MrMoonX]

NK don't even have capacity to launch one at anyone but South Korea. Cameron is an idiot to suggest we need trident on the back of empty NK threats when they can't even hit us, make these threats all the time and won't carry them out. Terrorism is the threat these days and they are stateless so you can't use nukes anyway, pointless stuck in the past Tory ideology.

 

[manic111]

I class myself as a 'lefty' but whether we like it or not military strength is still an important factor for our standing in the international community, I vote it stays, I just don't think it's time to give them up yet.

Less important than our economy though, and currently we can't afford to blow billions on nukes...

 

[*Moangroan*]

Loads of idiots have been posting stupid comments on this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22023184

I wish they would learn. We will never need to use our nukes. The whole point of them is to prevent conflict (specifically nuclear) through mutually assured destruction. When will these idiots learn the benefit is just in the fact we have them and could use them if needed.

Rant Over...

If it fitted with the agenda of our goverment or the agenda of the european parliment or nato ......those weapons could be used.


In an ideal world they are a detterent but dont be fooled into thinking they would not be used.

 

[Scythe]

Its the US's nukes in the first place, so we are reliant on the US for protection.

Either way, if we do develop new submarines, then the likelihood of the Chinese or something, stealing all the blueprints and information.

This would not happen, unless they had spies within BAE or something, which again is unlikely (but not impossible) due to the security clearance checks required.

Also, yes that are purchased from an American company, but we control the missiles. With the amount we have it is unlikely we'd ever run out, therefore we aren't really reliant on the US.

 

[joeyjojo]

Does anyone want to be 'responsible' for the next Hiroshima.

Don't forget that the bomb used over Hiroshima was equivalent to 12-16 kilotons of TNT, but the weapons stockpiled by the USA today are typically 100-9,000 kilotons.

The former destroyed a city and vaporised 70,000 people, so a bomb which is 600 times more powerful is just...

Source. Another nice fact from wiki:

The total global nuclear arsenal is about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5,000 megatons or 5 gigatons (5,000 million tons) of TNT.

 

[StriderX]

This would not happen, unless they had spies within BAE or something, which again is unlikely (but not impossible) due to the security clearance checks required.

Also, yes that are purchased from an American company, but we control the missiles. With the amount we have it is unlikely we'd ever run out, therefore we aren't really reliant on the US.

Control means jack, its a still American weapon and thus certain things come into play. (after all i doubt the US would just sell us the most destructive weapons ever, without taking something in return)

Security checks? I'm sure the F22 program had plenty, yet still all the information was stolen about it in the US, which probably gave another reason to cancel full production (beyond the rather unfortunate paint cost).

 

[helmet]

Would you like a game of chess?

If it came to globalthermonuclearwar having them puts us in a sorry state of affairs, not having them puts us in a sorry state of affairs. So having an opinion on it really makes no difference. There is no deterrent tit-for-tat and tic-tac-toe all in one.

If the money went into healthcare and education we'd still want more of that too, so much like the arms debate, it's pretty pointless.
People are people and never agree but like to moan, that's where the comments come from.

 

[Scythe]

Control means jack, its a still American weapon and thus certain things come into play. (after all i doubt the US would just sell us the most destructive weapons ever, without taking something in return)

Security checks? I'm sure the F22 program had plenty, yet still all the information was stolen about it in the US, which probably gave another reason to cancel full production (beyond the rather unfortunate paint cost).

The 1958 US-UK agreement. We share the development technology of atomic weapons / equipment with the US, and it is also the reason we have a nuclear powered submarine, HMS Dreadnought was powered by an Westinghouse reactor, and gave the British a jumpstart in technology which evolved into the submarine programme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement