Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
FTM said:
in reality..the americans and the russians have enough between them to destroy the world
our 1 submarine at sea offers nothing that the united states are not already offering
Click to expand...

I'd rather not have the Americans (and Russians) holding all the power - we can't un-invent nukes so next best thing is a moderate spread of them in other (hopefully stable) countries.

The whole destroy the world thing is a bit more of a complex story - we've already detonated in tests, etc. more than are currently held by countries world wide - the Russians even detonated one bomb more powerful than our entire historically inventory in one go - but in situations like the whole "nuclear winter" thing there is potential for serious global consequences in extreme cases - truth is even if the US and Russia did go full tit for tat things like nuclear winter are still considerably less likely to happen than they are to happen (not to say the damage wouldn't be severe but a long way from world ending).
 
Renew.

Just to be clear, this vote is not about renewing Trident (the actual missiles) but the four Vanguard submarines that carry them, ie procurement of the next generation of boats. A no vote by the Commons would in essence be a vote to unilaterally disarm, as the UK has no alternative to at sea deterrence.
 
Rroff said:
Plus with a resurgent Russia, China a bit of an unknown but also pushing more outwards these days it would be tactically insane to reduce our defensive capabilities at this time - beyond insane it would be contemptibly short sighted lunacy.
Click to expand...

So let's follow this logic and see where it goes.

In the not so distant future, a tyrannical and out of control China launches a pre-emptive strike against the UK and wipes out 95% of the country in one fell swoop. What few villages and towns remain will soon die of famine and/or environmental poisoning.

With its last breath, the UK launches all the atomic weapons it has at China. By now, China is well prepared for this feeble retaliation and prevents some, but not all, of those inbound missiles. Hong Kong is hit, so is Shanghai and Beijing.

The Dead of the UK must be well chuffed with this revenge from the grave

Meanwhile, friends and allies of the UK (particularly those within nearby vicinity and who will begin to suffer the environmental fallout of the attack) become somewhat annoyed and decide to teach China a lesson, possibly though not likely. For those that want to take action, they launch multiple nuclear strikes against China wiping it out of existence.

UK is toast, Europe is a toxic wasteland. China is toast, AsiaPac is a toxic wasteland. The world as we know it is over.

--------

Now I ask you, is it lunacy to arm for such an event or is it more lunacy to think a country would trigger such an event in the first place? I said it before and I'll say it again - it would not happen, it cannot happen.

You'd be better off just announcing in the press you're upgrading your nuclear arsenal and then literally do nothing and pocketing the cash. In the distant future, if we ever figure out a way to completely contain the fallout of using such weaponry - maybe, just maybe a country might actually deploy them in warfare - though by then I imagine we'll have far more precise and targeted weaponry anyway.
 
Moses said:
What happens when the Chinese nuke our carrier battlegroup(s), or kills the carriers with their missile which is designed to do just that? Investing in fancy planes and shiny ships won't stop that, but then we'd be screwed.
Click to expand...

You can't just look at this in isolation. If they sink our aircraft carrier, are we going to resort to mutually assured destruction?

If anything we're safer from China without nukes: "China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances."

Although to be honest, what is more likely to stop any aggression won't be our military, it'll be the size of our economy and our diplomats.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Agree on National service, but I would not make it military based, I would make it potentially military based, and then based in every ancilliary services, paramedical, health care, home support, care in the community, lots of our crippled services could do with this beneficial service. And national service would mean something, the key to some door or other, be it reduced uni fees, be it apprenticeship starter years.

There is a use for this, if the country would get off its arse and get behind it.
Click to expand...

Where will you be doing your national service then?
 
kaktus said:
So let's follow this logic and see where it goes.

In the not so distant future, a tyrannical and out of control China launches a pre-emptive strike against the UK and wipes out 95% of the country in one fell swoop. What few villages and towns remain will soon die of famine and/or environmental poisoning.

With its last breath, the UK launches all the atomic weapons it has at China. By now, China is well prepared for this feeble retaliation and prevents some, but not all, of those inbound missiles. Hong Kong is hit, so is Shanghai and Beijing.

The Dead of the UK must be well chuffed with this revenge from the grave

Meanwhile, friends and allies of the UK (particularly those within nearby vicinity and who will begin to suffer the environmental fallout of the attack) become somewhat annoyed and decide to teach China a lesson, possibly though not likely. For those that want to take action, they launch multiple nuclear strikes against China wiping it out of existence.

UK is toast, Europe is a toxic wasteland. China is toast, AsiaPac is a toxic wasteland. The world as we know it is over.

--------

Now I ask you, is it lunacy to arm for such an event or is it more lunacy to think a country would trigger such an event in the first place? I said it before and I'll say it again - it would not happen, it cannot happen.

You'd be better off just announcing in the press you're upgrading your nuclear arsenal and then literally do nothing and pocketing the cash. In the distant future, if we ever figure out a way to completely contain the fallout of using such weaponry - maybe, just maybe a country might actually deploy them in warfare - though by then I imagine we'll have far more precise and targeted weaponry anyway.
Click to expand...

You skipped a few steps leading into your example.

(Plus a tyrannical and out of control China would be a big problem for everyone and Britain getting nuked would actually be a fairly small problem in the larger issue of that).
 
Burnsy2023 said:
This is just a materially wrong statement.

The Government does continue to protect the country using diplomacy, indeed it's probably the most effective tool for preventing conflict.

Nukes are when you're giving up keeping the nation safe.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, do you believe all countries should disarm and do away with their nuclear weapons?
 
BBC guide to Trident , very factual.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

To me Trident is a big life insurance policy , do we need to renew ? I think the answer is yes.

Unless someone can come up with a more cost effective way of having a nuclear deterrent then a submarine based launch platform is what's needed .

A Rotation of 4 submarines each with 2 crews and 16 missiles with 3 warheads is very expensive but is the most effective way of having a nuclear deterrent . Missile based silos can be taken out , bomber launched missiles are dependent on how good the enemy's radar is .

To find a submarine is like a needle in a very big .haystack .

For me in the western world M.A.D works .
 
Last edited:
Renew, but they have to control the costs. I don't see why it should cost so much... make sure we get the best value for money deal.

Also relocate outside of scotland.
 
Jono8 said:
What a horribly dangerous world you want to live in then.
Click to expand...

I think most (sane) people would like disarmament in theory, most realise that it isn't possible in practise. IMO we need to strive for responsibility in our wielding of these kind of weapons and encourage the same with others.
 
An American weapon, supplied by the USA, controlled by the USA and can be destroyed in mid air by the USA.

Why don't the USA pay for it instead of us?

I vote no.
 
Goksly said:
Renew, but they have to control the costs. I don't see why it should cost so much... make sure we get the best value for money deal.

Also relocate outside of scotland.
Click to expand...

Scot here, don't see the need to move it out of Scotland tbh. Regardless of where it goes there will be protestors and the waters around Scotland are ideal.

I'd renew it.
 
lovelyhead said:
An American weapon, supplied by the USA, controlled by the USA and can be destroyed in mid air by the USA.

Why don't the USA pay for it instead of us?

I vote no.
Click to expand...

Don't think that last bit is true? not sure but I seem to remember some consternation from the US because we refused to implement it.

EDIT: That is in regard to launch control:

At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy installed devices on its submarines to prevent rogue commanders from persuading their crews to launch unauthorised nuclear attacks. These devices prevent an attack until a launch code has been sent by the chiefs of staff on behalf of the U.S. president. The Ministry of Defence chose not to install equivalent devices on Vanguard submarines on the grounds that an aggressor might be able to eliminate the British chain of command before a launch order could be sent.
Click to expand...

It seems that the actual missiles are pooled with no remote detonation capability.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom