Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
It is amusing that some in this thread would want everything nuclear dismantled so we could go back to having global conventional world wars again which killed millions. It's like people just can't see twenty feet in front of them.

Pick your lesser evil; I'll take the nukes.
 
I wouldn't renew - I'd invest in a better, more advanced navy.
Given we are island a better naval defence would be more useful than bombs that we can't use.
And if the nukes do start flying we are all dead anyway so not much use to be able to retaliate!
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Trump's not President though, and may never be, so his words (as always) should be taken with a truckload of salt.
Click to expand...

His words at this point are shaping the debate however. He is not operating in a vacuum. Either Hilary will choose to differentiate herself on these matters, or her team will judge where the mood of the American people is and align themselves to this type of sentiment.

We don't know. We don't know the policies of a Trump or Clinton administration. We don't know the policies of the administration after that.

Which is the entire point of making this 30 year decision.
 
Stolly said:
Tell us again why we should scale back our military capabilities in the hopes that America will ride to our rescue all possible scenarios.
Click to expand...

Considering how much we contribute then I don't really think that is an issue is it irrespective of him getting in or implementing that proposal. He is arguably talking about the Baltic region there.
 
h4rm0ny said:
You don't think millions dead and the nations involved being up to their eyes in debt from years of warfare and destruction of their infrastructure was sufficient motivation to have peace agreements, then? It was the US having nuclear weapons that made everyone decide to create trade agreements? I don't agree.
Click to expand...

ww1 didn't stop ww2. Don't believe any nuclear power has directly gone to war with another. Thankfully!
 
the_r_sole said:
I wouldn't renew - I'd invest in a better, more advanced navy.
Given we are island a better naval defence would be more useful than bombs that we can't use.
And if the nukes do start flying we are all dead anyway so not much use to be able to retaliate!
Click to expand...

What's the point of an advanced navy when nukes will destroy it anyway, and we have no retaliation to stop it?

Closing said:
tldr, can anyone summarise the points for and against this please?
Click to expand...

For:

No world wars since nukes
Nukes are never meant to be used, so they're working
MAD means no nuclear states will ever war with each other as there's no benefit to any kind of nuclear war
Political power in times of major world crisis

Against:

...Save money?
 
Closing said:
tldr, can anyone summarise the points for and against this please?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the more emotional driven aspects:

The main against:

-Cost / could be better spent elsewhere
-Believe that global economic integration either has done more for peace or is the guarantee of peace and MAD doctrines are redundant
-Don't believe that they are relevant to the threats we face today
-Believe that they will soon be made redundant by advances in technology
-We never/never will "use them"

For:

+We can't see the future but history has taught us that the geopolitical landscape can change in a heartbeat and a necessary deterrent to ensure long term security
+Believe that they are part of what created the environment in which we now enjoy relative peace and security
+Money spent couldn't buy us anything like equivalent conventional capabilities as an alternative (as a small island nation punching well above our weight this isn't an insignificant aspect)
+Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Ignoring the more emotional driven aspects:

The main against:

-Cost / could be better spent elsewhere - There is not a lot more important and worth spending money on than our own national security and keeping the world in relative peace. Not much point in having lots of new schools and hospitals if we are all dead.
-Believe that global economic integration either has done more for peace or is the guarantee of peace and MAD doctrines are redundant - We just voted to LEAVE the EU. Globalism and global economic integration is starting to look a lot more shaky..
-Don't believe that they are relevant to the threats we face today - They are wrong
-Believe that they will soon be made redundant by advances in technology -and when that time comes, we will have to develop/buy those new technologies accordingly
-We never/never will "use them" That is the whole point of them

it
Click to expand...
 
Tephnos said:
What's the point of an advanced navy when nukes will destroy it anyway, and we have no retaliation to stop it?
Click to expand...

If the nukes are flying we are dead anyway - you can't retaliate when you are dead.
If we have a useful navy, we would have a useful navy that could protect the waters around this island
I can't see the point in spending billions on something designed specifically not to be used, can we not just tell people we have them!?
Surely technology is advancing quickly and it would be better to invest in diversifying defences rather than relying on a deterrent which really spells the end if it's ever needed
 
the_r_sole said:
If the nukes are flying we are dead anyway - you can't retaliate when you are dead.
If we have a useful navy, we would have a useful navy that could protect the waters around this island
I can't see the point in spending billions on something designed specifically not to be used, can we not just tell people we have them!?
Surely technology is advancing quickly and it would be better to invest in diversifying defences rather than relying on a deterrent which really spells the end if it's ever needed
Click to expand...

It was calculated that the cost of a program that could convincingly fool foreign intelligence services would cost atleast as much as actually having the fully functional capabilities.

The subs are sufficient for now - personally I'd rather we had a 5th sub and were running full compliments of missiles as eventually that is going to be required - Russia for instance is bringing their S-500 platform online soon which has a moderate capability of defeating Trident missiles/MIRVs in small numbers but is a long way from being robust against saturation attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom