1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Britain's Nuclear Deterrent - Still needed?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Luseac, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. Luseac

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 23, 2005

    Posts: 3,751

    Location: York

    http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=nd05norris


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392050.stm

    Should the UK seek to replace the existing Trident system? The cost would be immense and although the current system will be in place for the next 15 years it's time for Blair to start thinking...
     
  2. MikeTimbers

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 6,731

    Location: New Eltham, London

    We disarm when the French disarm and not before.
     
  3. Luseac

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 23, 2005

    Posts: 3,751

    Location: York

    I share your sentiments. Many people mock the French military, but few know that their stockpile of Nuclear weapons is far greater than ours.
     
  4. Jumpingmedic

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 6, 2004

    Posts: 1,509

    Location: Behind you!

    :D indeed!

    Seriously though, I think it is only sensible to have a minimum deterrent. I believe our current stock is 200 or so... I'm pretty sure thats enough to trigger a nuclear winter so it's effectively a doomsday system as it is.

    America and Russia have managed to stock pile about 50,000 nukes between them, terrifying and pointless.

    Disarmament is a nice idea.. but as always it's gonna be a question of who's gonna be first... can we really be sure the minute our last bomb is gone we're not gonna see a whole pile of them coming our way? Yeh ok, so that's a bit paranoid but who really wants to take the chance.

    Then again maybe if we did shut them all down we'd be a shining example to the rest of the world, and everyone would kiss and make up.

    I'd rather have a few nukes lying around just in case to be honest and I think a serious means of defence is still called for in this country. I'm dreading the day one of these unstable middle eastern countries figure out how to build one, if they haven't already.
     
  5. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,018

    I support the concept of nuclear deterrent. The genie is out of the bottle and no wishful thinking will return it. We live in a nuclear World and whilst the imminent threat of some country attempting supremacy through nuclear blackmail is distant it may return. Mutual asssured destruction maybe mad but is is no less insane than casting away a vital strategic bargaining position for no return.

    £20bn is also not such a great amount of money over 30-50 years it will pale into insignificance against the other costs of life and making sacrifices to the latest leftist political dogma.
     
  6. Crofter

    Gangster

    Joined: Nov 17, 2005

    Posts: 153

    Plus , It means we wont get invaded by the yanks.

    ;)
     
  7. Goldy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 30, 2004

    Posts: 1,147

    Location: West Wing

    Its better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

    Sorry, i know its not very convincing. But its true, right?
     
  8. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    Nukes give us a voice..Without them we are just another piddly little country that gets ignored.

    Mr Kim certainly knows whats up.
     
  9. Sanzy

    Banned

    Joined: Mar 12, 2005

    Posts: 1,117

    Location: Forget About It

    get the new system ... we will need it against the aliens . :O
     
  10. matt100

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 31, 2004

    Posts: 11,399

    Location: Salisbury

    lol :D

    meh? :confused:

    anyway.. yes we do need a nuclear deterrent, if as a collective of NATO states we didn;t have a nuclear deterrent (which lets be honest we've never intended or planned to use seriously unless in "an eye for an eye" situation) we might very well have had world war 3 and maybe 4 or 5 by now. Its that "no win" situation thats pulled us from the brink many times.

    You can see it in Africa now how there is plausible winnability to wars so they carry on knocking 10 bells out of each other.
     
  11. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    Whilst I fully agree with the need for a nuclear deterrent, would someone explain to me what's wrong with trident? Surely any nuclear capabilities will act as a deterrent? As it stands, I don't see the need to participate in some kind of nuclear arms race, spending billions of pounds of tax payer's money just so that we can have the latest and greatest nuclear technology.
     
  12. benneh

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 9, 2004

    Posts: 9,154

    Location: Nr. brumijum

    http://www.idds.org/issNucForcesP5.html

    That's quite an interesting little read, no idea how accurate it is, but it's on the tinterweb so it must be true :p.

    As for the OP, i'm a pacifist by nature, and i totally disagree with the massively OTT stockpiling of nuclear warheads by Russia and the USA. But i do believe tat we need to retain a deterrent, according to that site we have 200 warheads (not really very powerfull in comparison to the russian warheads!), and i think that this is a reasonable figure. It's more than enough to wipe half of the globe out, and this is a good deterrent.

    Personally though i would like to see massive investment in furthering the accuracy of our missile systems, and some sort of insanely accurate satellite lazer type defense system, to intercept any nukes headed our way :). Oh and we might as well throw a few hundred billion into building that mad electronic bomb thingy. Should be good for a laugh.
     
  13. Luseac

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 23, 2005

    Posts: 3,751

    Location: York

    The trident system will be outdated in 2020, we are not entering into a arms race, to give you an idea the UK holds 200 war heads, the US has over 10,000.

    Indeed that is an interesting read, if you like that I can recommend http://www.thebulletin.org

    Although our figure is quite low, I read on thebullitin.org that each sub has a destructive power equivalent to 300 Hiroshimas.

    I'm not sure if the UK has a missile defence system? I'm presuming it does, however investment in new technology is always needed.
     
  14. MikeTimbers

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 6,731

    Location: New Eltham, London

    How does a nuclear missile get "out-dated". Does it have a "use-by" date? So long as they can be kept in ready state, how many do we need? A couple of subs on patrol at any one time ismore than enough considering our threat rate.
     
  15. loopstah

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 10, 2004

    Posts: 2,889

    Location: My secret mountain base!

    We need to keep an active nuclear deterrent although the way things are going I don't think MAD would stop certain groups from attacking us in the future.

    As some have said better to have them than to not have them when they are needed.
     
  16. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 33,211

    Location: block 16, cell 12

    thing is we wont ever need them....until the day we get wiped out...but then it will be too late after we have disarmed...

    forearmed IS forewarned!
     
  17. Ricochet J

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 29, 2004

    Posts: 12,880

    Using Germany as an example:

    I believe Germany has no stockpiles. Yet they are a very powerful country with a great economy and voice in the world. The only part they play in nukes is providing materials. Even then they're limited as the demand for thier materials is is decreasing. Yet they still hold a prominant position in the world today and I bet can still defend themselves with out the stockpile if needed for a time until allies give aid.

    I'm using Germany as an example to how Britian could become successful. However some may argue that our close ties with the USA is leading us astray in the long term putting our country on the dart board of newer threats, like the middle east and even possibly China and Russia. Therefore for such big threats need to be resolved therefore stockpiles are needed.
     
  18. Luseac

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 23, 2005

    Posts: 3,751

    Location: York

    I'm not sure about the missile's but the Vanguard Class subs will be nearly 30 years old in 2020.

    Only one sub is ever on patrol.
     
  19. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,263

    Location: Plymouth

    Germany, while not having a nuclear deterrant of their own, are certainly not defenseless. In fact they have several binding agreements in place with other countries about who will respond if they are attacked with WMD.

    We also have agreements with several countries (including Greece, Israel and many others countries without nukes) that we will defend or revenge them in the event of a nuclear attack against them. The US, Russia, France and so on all have similar agreements in place.

    To claim that a country is defenseless but successful because they lack nukes is to lack understanding of the MAD agreements.
     
  20. Crofter

    Gangster

    Joined: Nov 17, 2005

    Posts: 153

    Matt , whilst I said it in jest there is a certain truth behind it. Would the US have pushed for the removal of hussain if he really had his finger over the button? Would Gunho "Shock and Awe" tactics been the way to disarm him if he really could have lanched a Nuke at the states ?

    Germanys Strenth is not its army but its economy. They have massive power though trade.