Majority Want Rid of Trident?!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Jul 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not since the days of Blue Steel have we had an independent deterrent.
    So whats new about this new lot?
  2. 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.
  3. Do they indeed?
    Just because the Guardian says so doesn't make it a fact......
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. Well, it's a good job we have the former and not the one in brackets.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Yes we have. Trident is truly ours, the warheads are truly ours.

  12. Neue Arbiet will be happy to give up our UN seat to the new Grüppenfuhrers of the EU.
  13. 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!

  14. Nah… says 'US Navy Property' on the missiles…