Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
Jono8 said:
What a horribly dangerous world you want to live in then. As has been said, they can't be uninvited. Complete disarmament would be incredibly dangerous.
Click to expand...

Why? Warfare is becoming more asymmetric, it's more likely that any use of nuclear material is going to come from a terrorist group rather than a nation state. Who do you retaliate against then?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I don't think nukes are the primary or even a particularly noteworthy contributing factor to that. Globalisation is probably the single most important factor in that.
Click to expand...

How you can think that is truly beyond me.

In the meantime, what do over half the UK population think about unions with other countries and increased globalisation?...
 
I could buy the fact we need nukes, if every country in the world had nukes, but only a dozen or so do, all the other countries dont seem to be getting nuked...
 
BTW those saying we should fake it - the cost of faking it convincingly would run to about the same cost as actually having a nuclear weapons program - so maybe we are faking it who knows :S
 
Last edited:
Halfmad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Chance of Scots going independent.
It's a massive boost to the local economy, if the SNP do not want that boost - we'll take it.
 
Mr Jack said:
Personally, I'd vote not to renew. A completely useless boondoggle that has no beneficial effect for the UK, and will never, ever be launched.

However, as a politician, I'd vote to renew: it's simply not worth the political cost of cancelling Trident for the meaningless difference that a weapon we're never, ever going to launch will make. Think of it as an over-priced employment scheme for Scotland.

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.

However, what will happen is that Trident renewal gets voted through.
Click to expand...

That's all confused stuff, and is indicative of the current Labour leadership's position. No political party will win over floating voters if they blow hot and cold on defence. You make noises against a nuclear deterrent, then noises in favour of a nuclear deterrent, then suppose there is some space between yes and no, into which you jump feet first.

The obvious answer is that Trident should be renewed. Think of nuclear weapons as a good insurance system. No one worth their salts would advocate we do away with insurance, would they?
 
{T5K}TT said:
That's all confused stuff, and is indicative of the current Labour leadership's position. No political party will win over floating voters if they blow hot and cold on defence. You make noises against a nuclear deterrent, then noises in favour of a nuclear deterrent, then suppose there is some space between yes and no, into which you jump feet first.

The obvious answer is that Trident should be renewed. Think of nuclear weapons as a good insurance system. No one worth their salts would advocate we do away with insurance, would they?
Click to expand...

There are several 100 countries without insurance, and they are doing fine.
 
Maundie said:
Renew, no brainer without the fear of our Nuclear deterrent whats to stop people attacking us.
Click to expand...

What attacks are you expecting that require a nuclear arsenal ? Nuke don't work against groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda or the Taliban, so unless Putin is aout to go full retard and decide to create the set for Fallout 5 across Europe I think this whole notion of we need them as a deterrent is a red herring. We need them so the government can keep a rake load of people in Jobs.
 
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...
Click to expand...

Was undecided before but this post convinced me to vote for the renewal of Trident.
 
wildman said:
What attacks are you expecting that require a nuclear arsenal ? Nuke don't work against groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda or the Taliban, so unless Putin is aout to go full retard and decide to create the set for Fallout 5 across Europe I think this whole notion of we need them as a deterrent is a red herring. We need them so the government can keep a rake load of people in Jobs.
Click to expand...

If Putin was about to go full retard then our nuclear deterrent would have failed. The whole idea is to contain things like that before they get to the point someone goes full retard.
 
Rroff said:
If Putin was about to go full retard then our nuclear deterrent would have failed. The whole idea is to contain things like that before they get to the point someone goes full retard.
Click to expand...

and if you have a crazy leader literally his finger on the button who is going to go full retard anyway do you really think our pathetic 250 warheads will stop that happening ? If Putin decided to turn the UK to glass he could do that before we could do anything, then all that would be left would be to kill some Russians in revenge.

If our fear is rogue states or rogue groups that take control of a nuclear capability and are hellbent on launching at the west do you really think they would care if we had nukes or not ?
 
When you are talking a mad man who won't even give a second thought to launching nukes then all bets are off. They'd nuke us if they wanted to whether we had nukes or not and us having nukes is unlikely to be a provocation if they don't act as a deterrent either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom