Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

[CaptainRAVE]

In the current climate I would renew, expand and start seriously increasing our military spending.

 

[Burnsy2023]

In the current climate I would renew, expand and start seriously increasing our military spending.

And what would you cut to allow for this extra military spending?

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

In a specific direction with the wind in the right place sure.

So there's never any fallout?

 

[MooMoo444]

And what would you cut to allow for this extra military spending?

Police wages

 

[jimjamuk]

Shirely its not the amount of damage we can do with the limited 100kT war heads - its the fact we have at least 1 of them and we'll use it if you want to be a ****.

The fact we can put a number of them on targets is a pretty pointless discussion as if we have to do it as every other nuke the big boys own will also be hitting targets. No winners in that game

 

[Rroff]

In the current climate I would renew, expand and start seriously increasing our military spending.

We are certainly as an interesting juncture geopolitically. I don't think war is either immediate or inevitable but certainly going to be some shaking up over the next decade.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

And what would you cut to allow for this extra military spending?

Health and Welfare have grown steadily over the past 2 decades. I'd rather be taxed a bit more to pay for those than have every other department cut to support them.

 

[Rroff]

So there's never any fallout?

Not what I'm saying at all. My post was just contrasting that there is quite a big difference between the radiation output from Chernobyl and a Trident missile.

While the commentary in the face of the emotional "world ending nuke thing" of "barely be noticed" was exaggerating for effect - if someone was to detonate a single 100-475kt warhead over central Moscow at the moment of detonation someone living on the outer edge of the city would barely be effected by it initially - that isn't to say later on there wouldn't be fallout, etc. to deal with.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I think what we've learned from this thread and Brexit is that the public should be kept well away from complex topics such as this.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I think what we've learned from this thread and Brexit is that the public should be kept well away from complex topics such as this.

That should go without saying.

 

[Rroff]

I think what we've learned from this thread and Brexit is that the public should be kept well away from complex topics such as this.

Too many people in this country who've been brought up in the last 3 decades or so seem to be living a life wrapped in cotton wool and will quite happily vote away the safeguards that have allowed them to enjoy that lifestyle as they simply don't see the dangers :|

 

[RoboCod]

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.

Bye then

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I think what we've learned from this thread and Brexit is that the public should be kept well away from complex topics such as this.

Neither topic is especially complex. They only become complex when you're on the losing side. The fact you regard the general public with such a condescending attitude is precisely why the Left are being routed.

 

[datalol-jack]

Renew. Yep, I agree that we really have nothing of exceptional strategical value here and would be a charred pancake in a matter of seconds in retaliation. Yet it's infeasible to see it being voted down in the current parliament.

I would be happy with a multilateral deal with a disarmament rate which left us, France, India, Pakistan, etc disarmed first, but this is not on the table presently and unilateral disarmament merely empowers our geopolitical rivals, of whom terror groups are still but a fraction in destructive potential and risk.

Conventional, drone and cybersecurity forces to compensate may not actually cost that much less, take time to build up and fall to the same cost of non-interventionism argument.

For now Trident can safeguard a number of jobs and keep a few tinpot dictators awake at night, considering more pressing political matters at hand.

 

[Mr Jack]

There's a reason it was a cold war and not a hot one, and that reason is nukes.

There's probably a fair amount of truth to this. However, it wasn't our nukes that made the difference, and the cold war ended decades ago. The world has moved on.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Too many people in this country who've been brought up in the last 3 decades or so seem to be living a life wrapped in cotton wool and will quite happily vote away the safeguards that have allowed them to enjoy that lifestyle as they simply don't see the dangers :|

I have opinions, but I am aware and accept that they are not as well informed as they perhaps should be and certainly not enough to make a properly reasoned decision.

Neither topic is especially complex. They only become complex when you're on the losing side. The fact you regard the general public with such a condescending attitude is precisely why the Left are being routed.

They only seem relatively simple when you don't look below the surface and trivialise the complexity.

 

[{T5K}TT]

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.

The renewal of our Trident nuclear deterrent is of vital importance. There is nothing more important than defence and security. In the list of priorities, first is the defence and security of the realm.
Naturally, we can not spend all of GDP on defence and security: Resources are scarce, and risk assessments need to be done. At some cut-off point, resources might be better put into health, education and so on. But the point remains: First on the list is defence and security. There are a good many on the center-Left who take this position. However, on the Left there are those weasel about with the priorities, and always seek to push defence and security further down the list. They are inclined to dishonesty, and hold to a naive brand of Leftism which historically argued the West should unilaterally disarm, but was rather less keen that the former USSR disarms. That represents a dereliction of duty, is a disgrace and such individuals do not deserve to hold office.
Until Labour sorts out it's priorities, and puts defence and security at the top (minus any caveats), the party will remain unelectable.
You hold the position that you are against Trident, but would vote to renew it. That seems to me to be a confused position to adopt.

 

[Marky]

I think what we've learned from this thread and Brexit is that the public should be kept well away from complex topics such as this.

So true.

 

[Rroff]

I have opinions, but I am aware and accept that they are not as well informed as they perhaps should be and certainly not enough to make a properly reasoned decision.

Same pretty much goes for most if not all of us - the critical thing IMO is the ability/willingness to think for one's self. I might come across as obstinate in my perspective sometimes but I usually post to get a range of opinions and see what does and doesn't challenge my own thinking.

 

[bloodiedathame]

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.

Not really, the armed forces don't kill civilians indiscriminately. Plus, the armed forces do far more than just 'get the bad guys'. I'm all in favour of the military and well placed aggression, but not murdering civilians.