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

[StriderX]

You can't halve the submarine count to two. It would make them vulnerable to attack, due to dy dock time. We already only have enough to maintain one at sea permantley.

Without nukes your fear of conventional weapons would grow massively, as there's little deterent for skirmish poping up even more than they currently do.
The trident doesn't need reallocating for other stuff, we need to get our finances under control, NHS and benefits are the two massive culprits. Then I would say waste, part instutional, 1mangaer for 1 employee. What my mate just got in MOD. How the hell do you manage one person It's insane. Must be a cushy job though, then partly over complicated systems and crap contracts with lack of penalties. Goverment IT systems are a good example.
Whilst sorting out those issues, we need to insure our future income, the uk has always been cutting edge technology, we are not set up to fund this properly and then reap the benefits.

I never said anything about conventional weapons, I meant smaller nuclear weapons, while i doubt our borders are that unprotected, i wont bother assuming otherwise, either way if you say 2 is not enough, then fine, I did not know, I don't really wish to become so orientated in dock times.

I haven't even gone into the usual problems in the MoD costing something, then somehow it comes out 10 times more costly, but that may not occur, so isn't really a point.

I haven't even gone into potential problems with European breakdown yet, but its late and i suppose i don't really want to.

I suppose having them is equally as crap as not having them, I do try to have an idealistic view, "a better world" and such, but i am somewhat a destructive person and indeed find nuclear explosions impressively curious, but i find it rather reprehensible, so i must try to attack these objects consistently.

 

[Rroff]

I don't think you understand what I mean, and by disarming we aren't turning our back on the problem we would actually be setting a moral example.

If others wish to continue their expensive stalemate, then let them I say..



I don't see how that justifies anything here.

No offense but I snorted IRL when I read about setting the moral example... setting a moral example won't help you when staring down the barrel of a gun... until you get past the fallacy that not agressing people removes us from being a target this discussion is kind of pointless.

 

[Biohazard]

It is not stalemate at all.
Many countries do not have nukes, therefore they think twice about any action against nuclear armed opponents.

Of course it is a stalemate, that is exactly what MAD and the nuclear weapons club is.

 

[Biohazard]

No offense but I snorted IRL when I read about setting the moral example... setting a moral example won't help you when staring down the barrel of a gun... until you get past the fallacy that not agressing people removes us from being a target this discussion is kind of pointless.

Well I don't believe we'll be staring down the fuselage of a nuclear tipped ICBM anytime soon either so..

There is no fallacy is stating an obvious fact that if we stop warring we become less likely to be a victim of it our self.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not sure why the proponents of nuclear weapons are so keen to invoke memories of the (conventional) great wars and conflate them into strange analogies to further their points, and I'm still struggling to see any valid comparisons.

Perhaps as there's little difference. It's proven military tactics (or lack off).
We know what happens, we know what show of force can do, we know what happens, when people say it can never happen etc.

More importantly why do you ignore history?
Ever heard "history tends to repeat itself"

Why do you think this has suddenly changed.

 

[Mr_White]

I am quite surprised. The Poll currently is looking to favour the yes vote, while the general consensus in this thread so far has been towards No.

Maybe all the lefties are in bed now

The people voting yes have no desire to waste energy on the delusional is all.

 

[Glaucus]

Well I don't believe we'll be staring down the fuselage of a nuclear tipped ICBM anytime soon either so..

There is no fallacy is stating an obvious fact that if we stop warring we become less likely to be a victim of it our self.

Still stick on nukes vs nukes

Why are you so stuck on that. It works just as well as a deterrent vs non nuclear nations.
You don't need two sided nuke countries to work as a deterrent. You don't even need ICBMs in the equation.

Yet you still ignore history and you still think you can see the future.

 

[StriderX]

The people voting yes have no desire to waste energy on the delusional is all.

Same could technically be said of the other side, but there is no need to say it.

 

[Glaucus]

Of course it is a stalemate, that is exactly what MAD and the nuclear weapons club is.

Mad is but one theory and one possible outcome. It is by no means the only way nukes work.

That statement shows your lack of thinking.
So nukes are useless against a non nuclear nation are they? Oh wait no your wrong, that is not MaD it can't be as there is no mutual bit.

 

[Biohazard]

The people voting yes have no desire to waste energy on the delusional is all.

Most political opinions on OcUK seem to run contrary to public opinion, this topic being a glaring example.

If you took a similar poll in Scotland, the result would be as we stand at 75%, completely inverted to 75% no.

Across the UK it simmers around the 50% against, if you factor in economic considerations it rises some more again.

OcUK as a microcosm, is actually pretty bloody useless outwith these forums.

 

[Rroff]

Well I don't believe we'll be staring down the fuselage of a nuclear tipped ICBM anytime soon either so..

There is no fallacy is stating an obvious fact that if we stop warring we become less likely to be a victim of it our self.

In all likelihood no but I wouldn't bet my future on it and human nature and even society hasn't changed that much that history isn't a relevant example of what can happen.

 

[Mr_White]

Same could technically be said of the other side, but there is no need to say it.

Well obviously it can't as his point was raising the fact the thread content contradicts the poll results

 

[Biohazard]

Perhaps as there's little difference. It's proven military tactics (or lack off).
We know what happens, we know what show of force can do, we know what happens, when people say it can never happen etc.

More importantly why do you ignore history?
Ever heard "history tends to repeat itself"

Why do you think this has suddenly changed.

Little difference between... what sorry I'm still not getting it. Huge conventional arms races twice erupted into global warfare, thus the same has to happen with nuclear arms?

Is that what you are trying to come out with?

 

[Glaucus]

It's because the forums by its very nature attracts similar people young, reasonably affluent people, which is not representative of the country.

All though I alway hate this left, right thing. It's a load of BS. Depends on the policies, I can be extremely right, left or down the middle.

 

[Biohazard]

Still stick on nukes vs nukes

Why are you so stuck on that. It works just as well as a deterrent vs non nuclear nations.
You don't need two sided nuke countries to work as a deterrent. You don't even need ICBMs in the equation.

We aren't under the threat of a conventional invasion of the British Isles.

Yet you still ignore history and you still think you can see the future.

I'm hardly ignoring history Glaucus. I just can't make the same contorted correlations you seem to be.

 

[Biohazard]

It's because the forums by its very nature attracts similar people young, reasonably affluent people, which is not representative of the country.

All though I alway hate this left, right thing. It's a load of BS. Depends on the policies, I can be extremely right, left or down the middle.

Exactly.

 

[Glaucus]

We aren't under the threat of a conventional invasion of the British Isles.



I'm hardly ignoring history Glaucus. I just can't make the same contorted correlations you seem to be.

How is it contorted?
History shows several things, nothing's changed from those tipi es. The underlying human nature is the same. Weapons might change. But then they have in history. Gunpowder didn't change anything, nor has nukes. However nukes are large enough to act as a massive deterrent, especially as many countries don't have them.


And are only interests is uk is it? I suppose we don't have any global interests (Falklands, oil/gas pipes, "allies" or any number of other interests)

 

[Biohazard]

This comes back to, you being able to see the future, which no one else is capable off. Who, take your pick over the next 30years. Have you seen how fast the world can and does change?
history is littered with people as short sighted as you, going it can never happen, ww2 being the biggest albe not the only example.

Still not getting the comparions, and it's not short sighted it's more statement of reality.

How many skirmish and conventional wars do you think nukes have stopped? Impossible to put a number on it, but IMO loads.
People will resist you to war with a nuclear opponent, or insure it stays at a small skirmish level.
Again you do not need to launch nukes or have MAD for them to do their job.

IMO none to very little? It's all done through proxy as well, countless wars have taken place constantly since the last world war.

It is impossible to test this argument, therefore it has very little credibility.

 

[Glaucus]

how on earth is it a stamens of reality.
You can not see in to the future.

Never said countless wars hadn't. Those wars have been relatively small or one sided.
I also said its impossible to number.

 

[Biohazard]

How is it contorted?
History shows several things, nothing's changed from those tipi es. The underlying human nature is the same. Weapons might change. But then they have in history. Gunpowder didn't change anything, nor has nukes. However nukes are large enough to act as a massive deterrent, especially as many countries don't have them.

Do you have an example of them acting as a massive deterrent as you describe, or is it all just hypothetical?

And are only interests is uk is it? I suppose we don't have any global interests (Falklands, oil/gas pipes, "allies" or any number of other interests)

Of course we do, but they are not in any way shape or form reliant upon nuclear weapons of mass destruction.