NationStates Jolt Archive

This has been covered recently but we're getting closer to that moment when the British government wastes billions of pounds....

Not sure how interested non-UK people are going to be in this but the vote whether or not to renew the Trident Nuclear Weapon system is on Wednesday and - God save us - it looks like it's going to be passed...although Nigel Griffiths has quit in protest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6441627.stm

So (and I'm not bothered with a poll) my question is in two parts. Firstly, UK residents do you feel we need to renew Trident?

And secondly, do non-UK residents feel that nuclear arms should be destroyed (in cloud cuckoo land obviously), that they are a neccesary evil/neccessary defence mechanism or do ya just plain love them there nuclear warheads?

Non-UK resident here. Lose 'em.

I'm a Brit and I'm in favour of keeping our nuclear deterrent. Now I know that nukes aren't effective against international terrorism, but who knows what threats will spring up sometime in the future? The cold war might be over but with rogue states trying to build nukes, I think it's important that we keep ours. I know it's expensive but I think it's worth it considering it's insurance that should prevent any hostile states trying to go to war with us in the future.

I don't like the conservatives, but I'm glad they at least see the value of a nuclear deterrent.

I'm a Brit and I'm in favour of keeping our nuclear deterrent. Now I know that nukes aren't effective against international terrorism, but who knows what threats will spring up sometime in the future? The cold war might be over but with rogue states trying to build nukes, I think it's important that we keep ours. I know it's expensive but I think it's worth it considering it's insurance that should prevent any hostile states trying to go to war with us in the future.

I don't like the conservatives, but I'm glad they at least see the value of a nuclear deterrent.
Non-UK (American, actually), but there's always the handy Civilization quote: "Remember this: OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!":D Glad to see that the UK isn't likely to give up that useful little bit of Imperial leftovers just to appease the anti-terror obsessees who seem to believe Van Creveld's flawed hypothesis that conventional/deterrent war is inevitably going to "disappear." Once the economic gap between China/Russia/India settles down to a more reasonable level against the US/EU and they can put their advanced weaponry into actual production, as well as proliferate them to countries with fewer compunctions about using such, I suspect the 4thGW-niks will have a lot of explaining to do.
Especially if the US loses its position of "sole" superpower in favor of a more 19th Century style arrangement by mid-century; firmly adding China and Japan once their militaries finally square with their economies, Russia once the last bits of chaos from the Yeltsin era die down and assuming the petro-prosperity holds long enough, and Brazil and India once they pull their own "China Acts" and then some. Perhaps more even, but those are the obvious "Great Powers" I can think of currently rising to compensate for the US' gradual diminution to merely primus inter pares instead of its current dominus status, unless American alliances crumble as well and Europe should remilitarize to compensate for that too.

This has been covered recently but we're getting closer to that moment when the British government wastes billions of pounds....

Not sure how interested non-UK people are going to be in this but the vote whether or not to renew the Trident Nuclear Weapon system is on Wednesday and - God save us - it looks like it's going to be passed...although Nigel Griffiths has quit in protest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6441627.stm

So (and I'm not bothered with a poll) my question is in two parts. Firstly, UK residents do you feel we need to renew Trident?

And secondly, do non-UK residents feel that nuclear arms should be destroyed (in cloud cuckoo land obviously), that they are a neccesary evil/neccessary defence mechanism or do ya just plain love them there nuclear warheads?

Non-UK and keep them. The British having the Trident is a beautiful thing and I hope it gets renewed.

This thread and topic at all inspired by the Bush Administration's latest public display of affection?
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=45f62ef397a9d6fd&ei=qED2Rc2LAp_6qQOw4KGjAQ&url=http%3A//www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-hbomb3mar03%2C1%2C1657128.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-news-a_section&cid=0


*sigh*

Let's see. On the one hand we are busily telling Iran and Noth Korea they don't need nuclear weapons for safety.

On the other hand we are saying we need to renew our nuclear weapons for our own safety?

Usual hypocrisy I suppose...

Either let everyone have them, or ditch 'em.

4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident. :(

And secondly, do non-UK residents feel that nuclear arms should be destroyed (in cloud cuckoo land obviously

Maybe there's a better solution:
www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/megatons.asp

British Subject and United Kingdom Resident here. I support the existance of the nuclear deterrent, as nuclear weapons have proved to be a highly effective securer of peace, (anyone who things that it was just a coincidence that the USA and the USSR didn't go to all-out war is a fool, frankly), and, furthermore, I don't really trust "Ivan" enough to leave my nation and my continent completely undefended.

Keep the nukes, ditch the army. We're an island, it's not necessary (unless we really enjoy running around invading people?). If any country gets hostile towards us (which, let's face it, is pretty unlikely anyway) we tell them to Bugger Off Or Else, and if they don't we annihilate all their major cities using nuclear weapons.

If anyone's stupid enough to doubt us the first time, certainly nobody will be stupid enough to doubt us therafter, and everybody lives happily ever after.

Oh boy...

Well as it currently stands its an entire renewal programme. New subs and nukes.

With the added bonus that the systems are made by US companies. With US controls in place.

The idea of a independent UK nuclear deterrent is false. The Americans will hold the keys.

Its now slated to be costing 20 billion. How many hospitals or schools is that?

Nah...we don't need nukes. No one needs nukes. They are far far FAR too dangerous.

As a British citizen I think we shouldn’t renew are trident missile programme it’s a waste of money and nothing more than running away with the idea that were still a super power

Course keep in mind that should Britain ever find the need we can build nukes fairly quickly by ourselves without having to shell out 20 billion every few years

Couple of points to make

1 - The idea of an independent British nuclear deterrent is false. I can see virtually no situation currently or in the immediate future where our misiles would be launched unless in co-ordination with a US launch.

2 - The Trident system still has several years life left in it. The whole decision is being made on a political basis rather than one of need, to try and secure a legacy for Blair before his retirement. Replacement of Trident doesn't need to happen for about another 3 years, and this can be further delayed by reducing the number of boomers from 4 to 3.

3- That the government can consider spending £20 billion on a missile system when British troops on deployment are woefully in equipped and troops at home are being forced to live in sub standard conditions is, frankly, disgusting.

4 - On a personal note, the idea of your own defence relying on the abilty to annihilate other nations and civilisations is obscene.

Let's see. On the one hand we are busily telling Iran and Noth Korea they don't need nuclear weapons for safety.

On the other hand we are saying we need to renew our nuclear weapons for our own safety?

Usual hypocrisy I suppose...

Either let everyone have them, or ditch 'em.

Only if you assume moral equivalence...

As a British citizen I think we shouldn’t renew are trident missile programme it’s a waste of money and nothing more than running away with the idea that were still a super power

Course keep in mind that should Britain ever find the need we can build nukes fairly quickly by ourselves without having to shell out 20 billion every few years

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509690

I wonder how much the final cost will be.

I used to be passionately in favour of the independent nuclear deterrent, but in all honesty the idea seems more and more pointless as time goes on. I doubt very much that having nukes really does buy 'respect' internationally, as is claimed; the only reason to have them is because you think you one day might need to use them.

At present, as we're constantly being told, the threat comes not from a rogue superpower like the USSR but "The Terrorists". What good are nuclear weapons against suicide bombers? It's not as if we can send a strategic nuke down the Warren Street escalators.

The other argument that always used to persuade me is that 'there may be no threat now, but we should keep the technology in case we need it again in future'. But again, the reality is that the 'British' nuclear programme lasted only as long as until the Americas sold us their weapons. If all we're doing is buying them off the US, then there is no need to maintain the technology.

Let's phase the nukes out, and spend the money elsewhere.