Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

[bloodiedathame]

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.

LOL.

 

[Rroff]

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.

Deep down I hold that position - On many levels I'm against Trident but I would vote to renew it because I believe it to be a tactical error in the current geopolitical landscape to get rid of it.

 

[Pixel]

Renew.

As long as Russia still has nukes, we can't afford to throw ours away.

 

[Woden]

Deep down I hold that position - On many levels I'm against Trident but I would vote to renew it because I believe it to be a tactical error in the current geopolitical landscape to get rid of it.

My stance is pro-renewal, anti-use

 

[The Funktopus]

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.

This.

 

[Doogles]

I wish they'd rather spend that money on the bits of the armed forces that are actually doing the fighting, and even if the UK was nuked by a hostile foreign force would we fire it? I'm not so sure at the moment. Then again though, Trident is the best deterrent available to us, so having it does provide some reassurance in these difficult times. I just can't help feeling that we're putting all our eggs in one basket.

I see Comrade Corbyn is backing away from his Labour manifesto pledge to support the renewal of Trident.

Get rid of those terrible SA-80' and get in some AK', maybe we could licence build some AK 108' which use 5.56mm Nato.

 

[Mr Jack]

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.

I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn I don't agree. I doubly don't agree if you hold to the idea that military spending and big guns make us safe. In fact, our international development budget alone plays a bigger role in making us safe and most actions of our military in recent years have made us less safe. A silly willy-waving "deterrent" that deters no real threat and will never be used is a waste of military spending.

At some cut-off point, resources might be better put into health, education and so on.

Nonsense, these are the principle things that the state should be spending on. These have much more impact on the wellbeing of our fellow citizens than a bunch of tanks, or some nukes we won't use. I'm no pacifist, I do not believe in abolishing our military or that military action is never justified, but we should not attach too much importance to its necessity.

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.

You explain why with the highlighted sentence above, and a glance at the poll on this thread. I believe Trident does not a single thing to protect our nation - in fact, it's negative because we're wasting money on it instead of spending it on more useful things - but the fact is that the general public believes that Trident helps protect us. Because Trident is ultimately unimportant - as we'll never use it - it's not worth the political energy required to fight it. Better to save that energy to fight battles that actually matter on education, the economy, health, and policing. The things that make a real difference to this country, and the people who live here.

 

[Rroff]

I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn I don't agree. I doubly don't agree if you hold to the idea that military spending and big guns make us safe. In fact, our international development budget alone plays a bigger role in making us safe and most actions of our military in recent years have made us less safe. A silly willy-waving "deterrent" that deters no real threat and will never be used is a waste of military spending.

I definitely think that responsibility is one thing we should focus on - contrary to some who see the mark of an advanced civilisation as one that has divest itself of its weapons I see it as one that has learnt to wield the most powerful weapons with absolute responsibility.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

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.

In what way has the world moved on that makes a nuclear deterrent redundant? They certainly don't seem to have moved on for Russia, China or the US who are all investing in their nuclear arsenal.

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

For most people the question of EU membership boiled down to sovereignty (democracy, border controls etc). That is a fairly simple proposition which everyone can understand. The "complexity" you talk about is dwarfed by the importance of the fundamentals.

Likewise it might be true there is some nuance to the Trident issue, but those are still dwarfed by the raw fundamentals of the debate: Do we want to have a nuclear deterrent, yes or no? That is not something which is hard to understand.

If the general public are unable to decide on those issues, then why should they get a say on anything? Usually the issues in our general elections are equally complex with just as much impact.

Personally I agree that some people are incapable of making the right decision and should probably be stripped of their right to vote. Anyone arguing against renewing Trident is clearly incapable of making the right choice.

 

[Threepwood]

What is the pont of Trident?

We make them with the help of the US.

We need the say so from the US to be able to fire them using their GPS system, or if we do fire them without the US saying so we have to fire them with greatly reduced accuracy.

So what is the point?

US/UK relations?

 

[Nasher]

How do people know it wasn't scrapped years ago and it's not all a bluff?

But anyway, at the moment it's still needed. It's there to make people think twice about attacking the UK. Would Russia have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes? Probably not.

Get rid of those terrible SA-80' and get in some AK', maybe we could licence build some AK 108' which use 5.56mm Nato.

AKs are reliable but no where near as accurate as an SA-80 (which are actually one of the best assault rifles these days).

 

[Rroff]

What is the pont of Trident?

We make them with the help of the US.

We need the say so from the US to be able to fire them using their GPS system, or if we do fire them without the US saying so we have to fire them with greatly reduced accuracy.

So what is the point?

US/UK relations?

There was a whole load of reciprocated (both ways) military tech sharing around that time so probably part of some package.

How do people know it wasn't scrapped years ago and it's not all a bluff?

It could be - but it was calculated that a convincing bluff that would pass scrutiny of other countries would cost atleast as much as the actual program making it a bit pointless.

 

[Mr Jack]

We need the say so from the US to be able to fire them using their GPS system, or if we do fire them without the US saying so we have to fire them with greatly reduced accuracy.

Trident's guidance system doesn't use GPS, as I understand it and it's not like you need to be particularly precise in landing a nuke.

 

[Nasher]

It could be - but it was calculated that a convincing bluff that would pass scrutiny of other countries would cost atleast as much as the actual program making it a bit pointless.

I dunno, do you know anyone who has ever worked on Trident? How would the public know where the money is even going? It's all top secret, which means only those who are in on it know the details.

 

[Judgeneo]

Pretty clear poll result here.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

What is the pont of Trident?

We make them with the help of the US.

We need the say so from the US to be able to fire them using their GPS system, or if we do fire them without the US saying so we have to fire them with greatly reduced accuracy.

So what is the point?

US/UK relations?

The US has no control over our use Trident. The launch control is exclusively in our hands and the guidance systems do not rely on GPS as our enemies would almost certainly destroy those satellites immediately anyway.

So the point is to provide an independent nuclear deterrent.

Also, our having our own nuclear weapons greatly increases the security of all of NATO. If Russia (for example) only had to consider the US response, that might be manageable. Would the US risk nuclear annihilation over an invasion of France or the UK? Perhaps not. With our own nuclear weapons there's a lot more them to think about. Our red lines might be different the the US.

 

[Rroff]

I dunno, do you know anyone who has ever worked on Trident? How would the public know where the money is even going? It's all top secret, which means only those who are in on it know the details.

Its almost certain that some other countries would attempt to infiltrate the program at some level - which would expose the lack of an actual working staff program, some logistics aspects of it would be incredibly difficult and costly to fake and the lack of them happening would certain raise eyebrows - you can assume Russia, etc. is keeping tabs.

(Also any foreign intelligence can see when the subs are coming and going from the facilities for maintenance, etc. so you'd have to go the cost of having actual submarines and crews, etc. or a really complex fake).

 

[Mr Jack]

Its almost certain that some other countries would attempt to infiltrate the program at some level - which would expose the lack of an actual working staff program, some logistics aspects of it would be incredibly difficult and costly to fake and the lack of them happening would certain raise eyebrows - you can assume Russia, etc. is keeping tabs.

Yeah, the idea of successfully faking Trident in our democracy for the decades required is pretty implausible. Think simply of the components we'd need to make the submarines, how are you going to convincingly create a paper trail, etc. for all of that without letting anyone know?

It'd be almost as expensive as just building the damn system.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

My family has worked on the deterrent for the last two generations. So yeah, it's real.

 

[Mr Jack]

As long as Russia still has nukes, we can't afford to throw ours away.

What do you think Russia will do if we don't have nukes that it wouldn't do if we keep them?