Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
Fubsy said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was the whole point, under what circumstances would the UK alone be targeted and our allies with Nuclear weapons not respond? So if one of the founding UN Countries is attacked they won't respond?

This theoretical circumstance where they can attack without fear of reprisal doesn't exist now and it wouldn't if the UK disarmed.

I think this could actually be a useful bargaining chip with Europe, give us a good deal or we scrap Trident to help pay the tariffs. :D
 
Rroff said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really don't get your logic at all.

So having nukes is irrelevant if we're up against a nutter (who incidentally is the type that would consider using nukes anyway without regard to potential fallout) and not having nukes makes us vulnerable to attack from those who have nukes (but which aren't nutters, who wouldn't use the nukes in the first place anyway)
 
kaktus said:
I really don't get your logic at all.

So having nukes is irrelevant if we're up against a nutter (who incidentally is the type that would consider using nukes anyway without regard to potential fallout) and not having nukes makes us vulnerable to attack from those who have nukes (but which aren't nutters, who wouldn't use the nukes in the first place anyway)
Click to expand...

You are looking at it as nuke on nuke - nukes aren't just about deterring nukes - they act as a leveller in the general scheme of things resulting in parties being (though somewhat difficult to quantify in terms of amount) more likely to come to the negotiating table than turn to conventional warfare to get their way.
 
kaktus said:
I really don't get your logic at all.

So having nukes is irrelevant if we're up against a nutter (who incidentally is the type that would consider using nukes anyway without regard to potential fallout) and not having nukes makes us vulnerable to attack from those who have nukes (but which aren't nutters, who wouldn't use the nukes in the first place anyway)
Click to expand...

Australia doesn't have nukes, not seen North Korea lighting them up?
 
Darujhistan said:
do you really think our pathetic 250 warheads will stop that happening

It's more than enough. Look at what effect Chernobyl had, it's still uninhabitable.
Click to expand...

IIRC in terms of radiation fallout Chernobyl was the equivalent of 100 of our nuclear warheads being detonated every hour or something.

If one of the multiple warheads (MIRV) from a trident missile detonated over central Moscow they'd barely even notice it in the suburbs.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
You are looking at it as nuke on nuke - nukes aren't just about deterring nukes - they act as a leveller in the general scheme of things resulting in parties being (though somewhat difficult to quantify in terms of amount) more likely to come to the negotiating table than turn to conventional warfare to get their way.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree - the implicit knowledge that no country is even remotely likely to use nuclear weaponry, including the US now, (for all the reasons stated in this thread) renders it as neither detractive nor supportive to any international conflict or negotiation imho.

The military "my stick is bigger than yours" diplomacy is no longer relevant in the globalized world. The economic stick is the real tool of power.
 
kaktus said:
I have to disagree - the implicit knowledge that no country is even remotely likely to use nuclear weaponry, including the US now, (for all the reasons stated in this thread) renders it as neither detractive nor supportive to any international conflict or negotiation imho.

The military "my stick is bigger than yours" diplomacy is no longer relevant in the globalized world. The economic stick is the real tool of power.
Click to expand...

There is no guarantee a country wouldn't use one as a last ditch - I've not seen anything in this thread that states otherwise. The uncertainty works until you have someone like Corbyn come out and say they wouldn't use one.

If you hadn't noticed the world generally is somewhat slipping backwards at the moment military power is on something of a resurgence - almost every major power has increased their military spending/effective spending over the last 2-3 years in some cases doubling it or more.
 
Last edited:
Don't renew. There's no need whilst we're a member of NATO. No country is going to attack the UK when they know the US would respond in kind. Lots of other countries manage just fine without a 'nuclear deterrent'.

Plus, the world has moved on. Other nations aren't the threat any more.
 
Rroff said:
If you hadn't noticed the world generally is somewhat slipping backwards at the moment military power is on something of a resurgence
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out to me the state of current affairs, as you see it.

Respectfully - I'll agree to disagree with your views
 
Screeeech said:
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Barely notice is a bit of an exaggeration but most of the effects of say a W88 even with optimal airbust are contained within about 8km and minimal at 10km - the outer suburban area of Moscow is like in the range of 10-20km from the centre. (Obviously we'd likely stick several of them into the area if firing for maximum effect over a city).
 
eggcup said:
Australia doesn't have nukes, not seen North Korea lighting them up?
Click to expand...

Nor does japan, but its doesn't stop NK firing tests into there waters even with Japans Anti-ballistic systems which never give a 100% guarantee anyway (not that i would want missiles blowing up near my country anyway.

I'm sure North Korea would'nt be so daring if the JGSDF (Japan Ground Self-Defense Force) had there own nukes or intercontinental missile's as that would be a deterrent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom