Majority Want Rid of Trident?!

#3
I must admit that these days I wonder what value we really get for the expenditiure. Having them no longer really accords us any special treatment or staus in the world. Our tiny contribution is not really a counter to a Russian threat, nor would the fact we may be able to strike back really impact on the like of N Korea or Iran or a Taliban controlled Pakistan. I have a feeling that if our government had bee a bit more pragmatic on this front then by now we might have traded Trident for something that was really of more value to us.
 
#5
Asking the average bod on the street whether they want a nuclear deterrent replacement is a bit of a pointless exercise. 50% probably don't understand the question and 99% don't understand the issues around replacement. However while we persist with the UK is a democracy myth, then crack on Grauniad.
 
#6
It misses an enormous issue. If we lose our Nuclear capability we lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council - nuclear status is sometimes used as a justification for continued presence on the UNSC and if we give it up we slip further down the international pecking order.

Maintaining it allows us to punch above our weight and that is a price worth paying.
 
#7
maxi_77 said:
I must admit that these days I wonder what value we really get for the expenditiure. Having them no longer really accords us any special treatment or staus in the world. Our tiny contribution is not really a counter to a Russian threat, nor would the fact we may be able to strike back really impact on the like of N Korea or Iran or a Taliban controlled Pakistan. I have a feeling that if our government had bee a bit more pragmatic on this front then by now we might have traded Trident for something that was really of more value to us.
My bold, doubt it has too much impact on these governments policies but if you were told to stop buggering about with the threat of retaliation hanging over your head, it's likely to have more impact than if there was no threat at all.

You can use the same arguement for almost any item of military hardware carriers/tanks/aircraft and even troops. You don't know when you'll need it but if it's not there when you do then theres no crying about past decisions (peace dividends).

You reap what you sow.
 
#8
I remember the 'paranoia' of the 80s - the 'Not if but when' types with their nuclear holocaust threats. This seemed to go one of 2 ways with people; either we had something to throw back (i.e. Mutually Assured Destruction) or roll over and hope if we had none then no-one would be nasty enough to chuck 'em at us...sadly, the reality of this is still the same, though it was only Russia to worry about then!

With the likes of Iran now developing, we must surely need something in our 'back pocket' as a deterrent?

Arguably, money may well be better spent than on a mobile deterrent in the form of subs, but again raises the problems of where they would be stored etc etc etc.

Sadly, the average civvy in the street in not worldly wise enough to embrace these issues, and see it all as pointless. The government's policies and lies over Iraq and Afghanistan haven't helped here - the public (depending on which news report!) seem to view it as vote rigging - and could well be right!
 
#9
AndyPipkin said:
Not sure about the figures but personally I favour having either a trul independent deterrant (i.e. one that can't be rendered inoperable within months by the withdrawal of support from another nation)
Well, it's a good job we have the former and not the one in brackets.
 
#10
Oh fucking really?

The majority wanted Labour in power at the last election and look at the fucking state of us now.

Who cares about fucking majorities anyway.

Majority wants the death penalty
Majority wants tighter control on our borders
Majority wants prosecution over expenses
Majority wants a referendum on Europe
Majority wanted the banks to sink
Majority wants what government can't be bothered to give us. The Majority are not to be trusted with decisions of these magnitude!

I wouldn't be surprised if this is labour poopaganda intended to test the water for the scrapping of a coherent and proven defence policy. Like Gordon says, he'll take us down a peg or two
 
#11
stinker said:
maxi_77 said:
I must admit that these days I wonder what value we really get for the expenditiure. Having them no longer really accords us any special treatment or staus in the world. Our tiny contribution is not really a counter to a Russian threat, nor would the fact we may be able to strike back really impact on the like of N Korea or Iran or a Taliban controlled Pakistan. I have a feeling that if our government had bee a bit more pragmatic on this front then by now we might have traded Trident for something that was really of more value to us.
My bold, doubt it has too much impact on these governments policies but if you were told to stop buggering about with the threat of retaliation hanging over your head, it's likely to have more impact than if there was no threat at all.

You can use the same arguement for almost any item of military hardware carriers/tanks/aircraft and even troops. You don't know when you'll need it but if it's not there when you do then theres no crying about past decisions (peace dividends).

You reap what you sow.
In the case of nuclear weapons if one has a policy of no first use, as we currently have, your deterence value is down to being able to persuade the other side of MAD. This probably works fine until you opponent is advised by his local version of Dr Stangelove, which it would seam is far more likely in the places mentione that in the old Soviet Kremlin.
 
#12
mick_sterbs said:
Not since the days of Blue Steel have we had an independent deterrent.
So whats new about this new lot?
Yes we have. Trident is truly ours, the warheads are truly ours.
 
#13
tattybadger said:
It misses an enormous issue. If we lose our Nuclear capability we lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council - nuclear status is sometimes used as a justification for continued presence on the UNSC and if we give it up we slip further down the international pecking order.

Maintaining it allows us to punch above our weight and that is a price worth paying.

Neue Arbiet will be happy to give up our UN seat to the new Grüppenfuhrers of the EU.
 
#14
rickshaw-major said:
mick_sterbs said:
Not since the days of Blue Steel have we had an independent deterrent.
So whats new about this new lot?
Yes we have. Trident is truly ours, the warheads are truly ours.
You sure about that RM? I am pretty certain that Gordon will have sold anything valuable and franchised the rest under a PFI all overseen by a quango of some description. Of course the money made will have been reinvested into the economy to prop up our ailing banking sector or some such shit!

Last I heard, Trident was being operated by Tesco!
 
#15
rickshaw-major said:
mick_sterbs said:
Not since the days of Blue Steel have we had an independent deterrent.
So whats new about this new lot?
Yes we have. Trident is truly ours, the warheads are truly ours.

Nah… says 'US Navy Property' on the missiles…
 
#17
nukit said:
Arguably, money may well be better spent than on a mobile deterrent in the form of subs, but again raises the problems of where they would be stored etc etc etc.!

The only option for a nuclear deterrant that can strike a target anywhere in teh world is one that is submarine based.
 
#18
#19
Werewolf said:
AndyPipkin said:
At least according to Eht Grauniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/14/editorial-trident-nuclear-poll

Not sure about the figures but personally I favour having either a trul independent deterrant (i.e. one that can't be rendered inoperable within months by the withdrawal of support from another nation) or not having one at all.
The "majority" want a lot of things. Want don't get. :roll:
Indeed, that's why we have a representative, as opposed to direct, democracy.
 
#20
Ottar - when did we get that then?

Trident is utterly dependant on the USA for missile development, manufacture, testing and updates. We also rely on the US for some critical warhead components, targetting data and degaussing of the subs. Without US support Trident would become inoperable in months. How independent is that?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top