Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

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

This assumes that the USA and the other NATO with nuclear weapons would risk WW3 to protect us if we didn't have our own deterrent.

Both USA and France have problems of their own right now.
 
One Trident missile contains multiple (14 or so) warheads doesn't it?

Saw one at the airforce museum just outside Washington. Terrifying technology.
 
NK don't fire nukes at anyone because they have nothing to gain from it, and they know their little regime would be wiped off the map pretty sharpish. They're doing these tests etc as part of a diplomatic game, same as Iran did.
 
Rroff said:
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).
Click to expand...

The maximum yield of the Trident warheads is 100Kt, for comparison the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15Kt and 21Kt, respectively. Dismissing the amount of damage these warheads would do is facile, they would cause immense devastation and loss of human life.

Compared to the arsenal wielded by Russia, yeah sure they're not that big but the amount of damage we could in principle inflict is gut wrenching on its scale.
 
No1newts said:
Yes.

I really don't want it, I think it's a sad world where it is needed but you need some form of deterrent.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the presence and maintenance of a nuclear deterrent implies the World is sad. It's hardly the case that the pre-nuclear weapons age was peaceful and harmonious.
 
mid_gen said:
NK don't fire nukes at anyone because they have nothing to gain from it, and they know their little regime would be wiped off the map pretty sharpish. They're doing these tests etc as part of a diplomatic game, same as Iran did.
Click to expand...

Yeah Iran's whole nuclear program is a political game and not because they'd actually use it - but you still have that issue that you don't know for 100% sure they wouldn't use it - and the reason the US is so hot on them not having it isn't about fear of them using it but fear of the power it would give Iran as a bargaining chip.
 
Mr Jack said:
The maximum yield of the Trident warheads is 100Kt, for comparison the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15Kt and 21Kt, respectively. Dismissing the amount of damage these warheads would do is facile, they would cause immense devastation and loss of human life.

Compared to the arsenal wielded by Russia, yeah sure they're not that big but the amount of damage we could in principle inflict is gut wrenching on its scale.
Click to expand...

Not really my intention to be dismissive of the damage they'd do - just that some people don't see beyond the emotional rhetoric of "WORLD ENDING NUKES" and operate their opinion off pretty much that alone.
 
{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.
Click to expand...

I don't think my position is particularly confused: I believe renewing Trident is a waste but I also think there are vastly more important issues facing the country than whether or not we renew Trident. Accordingly, I conclude that spending political capital on opposing it is a waste.

Alternative nuclear defence schemes could be less wasteful and maintain our "deterrent" while not being so politically wasteful.
 
Mr Jack said:
Alternative nuclear defence schemes could be less wasteful and maintain our "deterrent" while not being so politically wasteful.
Click to expand...

From what I recall when looking into it the less wasteful options often didn't have as good effectiveness i.e. easier to counter or would require utilising more inland options that would be less desirable than the current option that can be operated more remote to populated areas.
 
Rroff said:
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).
Click to expand...

I don't think we even have W88 power anymore. We have the delivery system but our warheads are limited to 100kt. A full W88 is about 450kt.
 
Rroff said:
From what I recall when looking into it the less wasteful options often didn't have as good effectiveness i.e. easier to counter or would require utilising more inland options that would be less desirable than the current option that can be operated more remote to populated areas.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but remember that the effectiveness of submarine launched technology is not assured in the future either. Drone based surveillance methods, for example, have the potential to render submarines visible.


In any case, the effectiveness of any "deterrent" is really a moot point since it doesn't actually deter anyone and will never be used.
 
Goksly said:
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.
Click to expand...

The boost to the local economy of area is greatly exaggerated by unionist politicians for their own warmongering purposes. Only 520 jobs at Faslane are directly linked to Trident, and of the civilian jobs at Faslane, of MOD civilians, only 423 live in Argyll and Bute and only 457 live in West Dunbartonshire.

The remainder are contractors who can be seen being brought in daily on a fleet of coaches. These contractors do not live in the town, nor do they have families in the town and therefore they do not spend their salaries in the town. Likewise many of the service personnel, who live on the base when they have to but return to their families domiciled in other parts of the UK

Helensburgh which is on the door step of Faslane show on the census population figures show a steady decline and lots of vacant premises and empty shops.
 
robfosters said:
I don't think we even have W88 power anymore. We have the delivery system but our warheads are limited to 100kt. A full W88 is about 450kt.
Click to expand...

Not sure what we "actually" carry - I believe its the mark 4 which is designed for 100kt warheads but there have been 2 upgrade programs recently - though supposedly mostly to update the detonation mechanisms.
 
No of course not. Did anyone catch the interview of that guy who's running to be Labour leader? Wants to tax and spend up to the eyeballs, yets wants to renew Trident! As a deterrent against terrorism? What?! Against a guy driving a lorry along a promenade?! How on earth is a nuke supposed to stop that? Madness.
 
This thread doesn't even need armchair experts.

What do nuclear warheads do? They flatten cities killing thousands of people. Do I want to live in a country that would do that, provoked or not? No, I don't.
 
Mr Jack said:
Probably true, but remember that the effectiveness of submarine launched technology is not assured in the future either. Drone based surveillance methods, for example, have the potential to render submarines visible.


In any case, the effectiveness of any "deterrent" is really a moot point since it doesn't actually deter anyone and will never be used.
Click to expand...

Russia's S-500 upgrade would be an effective defence against Trident - we'd have to carry full compliments on the subs to ensure that a good number get through - fortunately they haven't cracked scaling them effectively yet - neither does it look likely they will for quite awhile - so they can be defeated with saturation attacks.

bloodiedathame said:
This thread doesn't even need armchair experts.

What do nuclear warheads do? They flatten cities killing thousands of people. Do I want to live in a country that would do that, provoked or not? No, I don't.
Click to expand...


You can say the same for our armed forces, etc. as well - good luck living in a world where there still are bad people if you don't want to defend yourself - appeasement never works, you can't turn away aggression by simply not being aggressive yourself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom