Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
I would not renew, primarily due to shear cost. I think that investing in other, more conventional forces and equipment are likely to give us real world strategic and tactical advantages that we can actually use.

Making sure that both aircraft carriers have F35s, making sure that we have enough destroyers and frigates for the Navy plus ground troops for any offensive I think would be better placed for national power projection.

With that said, I would leave it up to the Defence Staff to give us good advice on what they think would be most useful to them. They have the expertise to make an informed decision.
 
What i would prefer is a replacement with an EU co-operated deterrent, one that's more advanced with split costs... oh wait...
 
Mr Jack said:
...

Or, if we're allowed a more nuanced response than yes/no: we should probably compromise on a less costly nuclear defence scheme. There is utterly no need to maintain a constantly active nuclear "deterrent" in the current world so there should be room to reduce the scale and cost of our system.

...
Click to expand...

That's the Liberal Democrats' stance on this. Essentially take a step down the nuclear deterrent ladder by having fewer submarines and no 24hr patrols; maintaining submarine crews so we still have the skills and not burnt our bridges.
 
Bonjour said:
That's the Liberal Democrats' stance on this. Essentially take a step down the nuclear deterrent ladder by having fewer submarines and no 24hr patrols; maintaining submarine crews so we still have the skills and not burnt our bridges.
Click to expand...

Park them up in Portsmouth and hope someone with the launch codes is nearby if we need them?

Exactly the level of genius we've come to expect from the LimpDumbs.
 
I was listening to LBC on this topic yesterday and the thought process of seemingly ordinary people calling in is absolutely astonishing

This one chap had a particularly interesting viewpoint:

moron #21809213: "if dey nuke yous or us, we'll nuke dem right"
LBC host: "well if we're all dead anyway, what difference does it make?"
moron #21809213: "well...revenge"

And then about 10 other calls of almost identical nature...

We really don't need nuclear weaponry of any sort or kind in this day and age. No country does and the whole idea of having it is to scare would-be attackers that retaliation is possible. But honestly, this is a non-starter because no aggressor will deploy it even against a country that doesn't have a nuclear arsenal for a multitude of reasons (I'm not saying they won't go to war, I'm saying they will never use nuclear weapons)

1. Tit-for-Tat retaliation doesn't work when your country has been wiped off the face of the earth. Who's left to care about revenge?

2. The effects of multiple nuclear bombs in an all-out war would not only impact the immediate geographies of those countries at war but all other countries within thousands of miles of them and possibly even the globe. Who's going to sit back in France and watch their population suffer the fallout of a nuclear war raging between Italy and Spain? We can talk about theoretical defensive scenarios all day long but realistically it would not happen, it could not happen because if it does it means none of us will be around to care

3. Having nuclear weapons as a deterrent really isn't much more of a deterrent anymore - for reasons see above!

The only real valid reason for renewing the Trident program (which is actually about renewing the vessels not the weapons) is the creation of jobs / employment and it seems like a hell of an expensive way to put engineers to work.

just my 2 pennies
 
Bonjour said:
That's the Liberal Democrats' stance on this. Essentially take a step down the nuclear deterrent ladder by having fewer submarines and no 24hr patrols; maintaining submarine crews so we still have the skills and not burnt our bridges.
Click to expand...

The whole point of our nuclear deterrent is that no one knows where it is.
 
No, in the event nuclear weapons are used we will be screwed regardless if we have them or not.

It's a waste of money.

It's highly unlikely a situation will ever arise where we alone are attacked by nuclear weapons and nobody else retaliates.

Terrorists maybe. but having a nuclear deterrent doesn't work against terrorist groups, where do we aim them? :D
 
The uncertainty of our response but the certainty of it's availability is what makes it a deterrent.

Having a weapon then saying there is no circumstances in which we'd use it and it's stored on the wall with the ammunition locked away is the same as having no deterrent.

You don't have peace by winning wars you get peace by making sure that everyone knows you'd win if you chose to go to war.

Pax Britannia was built on the fact no nation on Earth could compete with the Royal Navy, so no one tried.
 
our paltry few nukes add nothing..we could easily just lease a couple of subs from the states if we must have them

seems a colossal waste of money

conventional forces are under more pressure than ever..spend it wheres its actually being used right now
 
If there was a global commitment to dismantle all nuclear weapons, I would ditch it. But there isn't, so we need to hang onto it. It's not something you can just whip up again in a hurry if you need it.

While their existence has meant the major powers fight out proxy wars across the globe instead of direct conflict....it is on balance, preferable to the World Wars that came before.
 
ebilcake said:
No, in the event nuclear weapons are used we will be screwed regardless if we have them or not.
Click to expand...

That isn't exactly the point in having them. They aren't offensive weapons, or even defensive - more a sobering "What happens if I do this?" sort of thing. If you ever pull the trigger you kill the human race.

This has been necessary since the USA decided to use them in 1945. If one side doesn't have them you can use them without fear of reprisal.

I do think if it weren't for nuclear weapons we certainly would have had a third world war by now.
 
Why don't we pretend to renew it? Then use the money saved to bolster things like traditional policing/military?

Who's going to check? :p The rest of the world see a couple of subs rotate occasionally out of Faslane and no-ones the wiser. :p

Best of both worlds ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom