Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951

Nitefly

Nitefly

Nitefly

Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
37,397
How would you vote in relation to the potential replacement of the trident nuclear weapons system?

I'd vote not to replace them - too expensive / money could have a more realisable effect elsewhere. Also, can't we just keep using / maintaining the existing ones? Not sure on that.

I expect a huge vote to renew!
 
Last edited:
While I don't see a need for them in this day and age, i do not believe the world is stable enough to dispense with them entirely.
Plus, when Merkel said 'we can't be Switzerland with nukes' I say tough titties , watch us. Just jealous because they are not allowed them :D
 
Renew.

I'd rather it be that no one had them but sadly chest huffing and drumming between nations is still the way the world works.
 
Renew

We obviously don't want to be part of any sort of union or globalisation so we better at least have some nukes to stop things going **** up.
 
I have a question. When people say its a waste of money what exactly happens to the money? Does it stay in the UK economy or does it go abroad somewhere never to be seen again?
 
I wish they'd rather spend that money on the bits of the armed forces that are actually doing the fighting, and even if the UK was nuked by a hostile foreign force would we fire it? I'm not so sure at the moment. Then again though, Trident is the best deterrent available to us, so having it does provide some reassurance in these difficult times. I just can't help feeling that we're putting all our eggs in one basket.

I see Comrade Corbyn is backing away from his Labour manifesto pledge to support the renewal of Trident.
 
Drizmod said:
I have a question. When people say its a waste of money what exactly happens to the money? Does it stay in the UK economy or does it go abroad somewhere never to be seen again?
Click to expand...

No doubt there would be jobs in the renewal, but it's more that the end product is 'less practicable' (to say the least) than if the same money were spent on the NHS, infrastructure.... Anything really.
 
Renew and relocate on Thames estuary.

Since Scotland could gain independence at any time.

Makes sense.
 
Renew of course. Trident isn't a weapon you fire, it's a weapon to stop you being fired upon. This is what people don't understand.
 
Problem is, none of us are clued up on what the best option is. This is why we have people out there, some that are voted, to make said decisions for us.

However, I'd like to think that no nation,that has such weapons, would ever use them again. So i would like to see them gone, or at least heavily reduced a long with a lot of other military spends.
 
Last edited:
In this day and age, no one should need nuclear arms. It would be more sensible to spend the money in convincing everyone to get along and get rid of nuclear attack capabilities.

That said, the entire world seems to be going backwards...
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
No doubt there would be jobs in the renewal, but it's more that the end product is 'less practicable' (to say the least) than if the same money were spent on the NHS, infrastructure.... Anything really.
Click to expand...

I thought trident came out ofvthe military budget, which is ringfenced at 2% of gdp. Might be wrong though, but if that's the case I say renew, especially if we are going to be independent.
 
delta0 said:
This thread needs a poll.

Renew. They are cheaper than an armed force of equivalent power.
Click to expand...

^^ This. The nuclear deterrent is essential. I also like Sir Humphrey's justification:


Having said that, this clip is hilarious:


:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom