Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Gonnagle on July 05, 2016, 09:57:42 AM
-
Dear Lost in a World of Politics,
Why??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36710731
I mean, why now, the Trident question is not going away, in the midst of all this madness, why the rush for debate.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Me,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674305/May-march-10-Cabinet-ministers-100-MPs-No10-bid-vows-build-new-Trident-now.html
Okay it is the daily wail, but are the Russians suddenly coming, it's me :P :P I should stop reading posts on this forum and reading the news :o :o do they still do those flotation tank thingy's, I think I need a couple of months in one of those things. :-X
Gonnagle.
-
Takes me back half a decade to "We don't want Polaris":
http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident
I'm prepared to go off Theresa May.
-
New Trident will bring jobs and keep the British shipbuilding industry afloat (ahem) for a few more years.
On the other hand, so will building conventional ships and submarines and these are likely to prove more useful.
-
Dear Lost in a World of Politics,
Why??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36710731
I mean, why now, the Trident question is not going away, in the midst of all this madness, why the rush for debate.
Gonnagle.
I think Brexit teaches us that decisions like this no matter how desirable need research.
-
Why isn't the debate about moving Trident, leaving it in a soon to be foreign country is madness.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Why isn't the debate about moving Trident, leaving it in a soon to be foreign country is madness.
Maybe that question can be raised in the Commons tomorrow.
And talking of madness :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17026538
Mutually Assured Destruction or just plain Mad :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
The question of renewing Trident will be debated today in the House of Commons and it looks like the majority of MP's are for renew.
There is plenty of media attention to inform us to the pro's and con's of the debate,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
This topic has been touched on in various threads on this forum and has been suggested by Sane that it merits a thread of its own.
The whole question of Trident has so many avenues to explore, the cost, Scottish Independence, NATO, our relationship with Europe and the U.S.A.
My own opinion is that we should scrap Trident, send a message to the world that Great Britain is a peace loving country, we want to build bridges not destroy them.
We have watched over the past decade of a rise in terrorism which Trident has had absolutely no effect, how can you deploy Trident on the streets of France.
We need to have a whole new discussion on how we protect our citizens, we seem to find the money to renew Trident but are unwilling to invest in our troops on the ground and our police force is constantly being asked to make cuts, this to me is madness, the events in France have shown us where exactly we should invest.
There is no easy answer to terrorism but Trident is most definitely not one of them.
Anyway, I thought that this could be great topic for debate and I have only given three options to vote for, if you think there are more options hopefully the Mods can add to the list.
I have left the poll open and you can change your vote if you change your stance on Trident.
Gonnagle.
-
You have said what I would have said, Gonnagle. I see no point in keeping Trident. Nuclear weapons are no deterrent, never have been. They are an abomination.
Here is the CND website which gives the latest on Trident specifically (I didn't realise it was so expensive!):
http://www.cnduk.org/
-
hmm, Gonners, you already had a thread on Trident going...
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12300.0
Anyway, my two pence worth... The submarines are fantastic technology and, somewhat like a man with a powerful automatic rifle in the cupboard, or maybe a hobbit with a magic ring, I find myself more and more reluctant to dispose of them - Despite hoping that there is never occasion to use them as weapons and knowing that any such use will ultimately be self-destructive.
OK, they cost a ridiculous amount of money to maintain - but that is still money floating around the economy.
Their uselessness against terrorists is noted, but just because our immediate threats are from ISIS and other madmen, Brexit and the rise of Trump and Putin does mean more conventional threats still exist.
-
Dear Udayana,
Yes, after I had posted this thread I then realised that I had another on the go, maybe the Mods can merge them.
OK, they cost a ridiculous amount of money to maintain - but that is still money floating around the economy.
I think that ridiculous amount of money could be better spent, but I will say I am not wedded to scrapping Trident if someone can come up with a better argument.
One MP on the radio was talking about downgrading, do we still need four nuclear submarines.
Scrapping Trident is a big step, a way forward could be downgrading whilst looking at ways for the workforce to diversify, in these uncertain times I don't want anyone losing their jobs, which is why I think the whole question should be debated at length by our MP's.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Udayana,
Yes, after I had posted this thread I then realised that I had another on the go, maybe the Mods can merge them.
Moderator:
Will do it now.
Done
-
Not very often I agree with Peter Hitchens (though more often of late(
'Trident like spending all your money on insuring against alien abduction, so you can't afford cover against fire and theft.'
-
Dear Udayana,
...
One MP on the radio was talking about downgrading, do we still need four nuclear submarines.
Scrapping Trident is a big step, a way forward could be downgrading whilst looking at ways for the workforce to diversify, in these uncertain times I don't want anyone losing their jobs, which is why I think the whole question should be debated at length by our MP's.
Gonnagle.
I expect that 4 subs are the optimal number. There is some flexibility as regards the types and number of missiles and warheads. However, again, I would expect the MoD to choose optimal configurations, depending on strategic and tactical objectives.
The government will just have to keep raising tax to pay for these weapons. I'd like to see greater breakdown on our tax notifications about how much is allocated to different items - eg. the amount spent on the Trident programme should be given separate from other defence expenditure. People should know what it is costing them individually and be able to compare against NHS, benefits, pensions and so on.
-
Not very often I agree with Peter Hitchens (though more often of late(
'Trident like spending all your money on insuring against alien abduction, so you can't afford cover against fire and theft.'
It's a good point. Are our conventional defences adequate for their intended purpose? From most recent evidence: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - it doesn't seem like it. But what do we need to be prepared for?
-
gonnagle
My own opinion is that we should scrap Trident, send a message to the world that Great Britain is a peace loving country, we want to build bridges not destroy them.
Idealistic, but futile! There are nowhere near enough like-minded people in the world at present, let alone in the near or further into the future who would say, 'Oh, how lovely, what a good idea, we must follow Britain's lead.'
We have watched over the past decade of a rise in terrorism which Trident has had absolutely no effect,...
As you say, we cannot name anyone who thought it would.
[/Re preparedness: The whole point is we do not know what future generations will need to be prepared for. We cannot afford to risk their futures by losing our nuclear deterrent.
-
gonnagleIdealistic, but futile! There are nowhere near enough like-minded people in the world at present, let alone in the near or further into the future who would say, 'Oh, how lovely, what a good idea, we must follow Britain's lead.'
As you say, we cannot name anyone who thought it would.
[/
How are there ever going to be enough people in the world like it if you want us to keep something to melt people that we probably would never use, and even if we wanted to after someone's else first strike would only be after most of us were dead, so would only kill millions of ordinary people for no purpose? What does it actually achieve currently? You want to spend 200 billion on it, justify it.
-
I'll have a go a bit later - it's swimming in a minute!
-
It's a good point. Are our conventional defences adequate for their intended purpose? From most recent evidence: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - it doesn't seem like it. But what do we need to be prepared for?
I would rather question if our 'defence' forces are being used correctly as well? Should they have been in Iraq in the first place?
-
I suppose the theory is that it stops first strikes against us. The people who might do this are presumably Russia and China. So it produces a Mexican stand-off (in theory).
There's a moral argument that it uses genocide as a potential weapon, so should be resisted. I'm not sure if this is Corbyn's view. Of course, it's also expensive.
-
I would rather question if our 'defence' forces are being used correctly as well? Should they have been in Iraq in the first place?
I think all those engagements were just plain wrong.
I would have supported more involvement - at a much earlier stage - in Syria, but probably not actual direct military involvement using troops or airstrikes, rather UN imposed no-fly zones and weapons inspections with political support for the rebels.
The government must decide what role we are to take and to ensure we have suitable forces and equipment to carry out their plans. We must have governments that do not lie to us about the threats or objectives in any situation.
-
I suppose the theory is that it stops first strikes against us. The people who might do this are presumably Russia and China. So it produces a Mexican stand-off (in theory).
There's a moral argument that it uses genocide as a potential weapon, so should be resisted. I'm not sure if this is Corbyn's view. Of course, it's also expensive.
The only long term answer is multi-lateral disarmament.
-
I think all those engagements were just plain wrong.
I would have supported more involvement - at a much earlier stage - in Syria, but probably not actual direct military involvement using troops or airstrikes, rather UN imposed no-fly zones and weapons inspections with political support for the rebels.
The government must decide what role we are to take and to ensure we have suitable forces and equipment to carry out their plans. We must have governments that do not lie to us about the threats or objectives in any situation.
Which I pretty much agree with but I think we have to then very clear about the aims overall of having a military and what it might be used for and part of that is what the impact is of maintaining a nuclear deterrent is upon those aims.
-
The only long term answer is multi-lateral disarmament.
in the long term.....
-
interesting that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has just said he will vote against Trident because 'we need more rational decisions'
-
My own opinion is that we should scrap Trident, send a message to the world that Great Britain is a peace loving country, we want to build bridges not destroy them.
Given our history over the past 2-300 years, I doubt whether many people will believe that claim, Gonners.
We need to have a whole new discussion on how we protect our citizens, ...
Couldn't agree more. There is still time to email your MP and ask them to abstain, or vote against the proposal as it stands, or even to put an amendment.
-
You have said what I would have said, Gonnagle. I see no point in keeping Trident. Nuclear weapons are no deterrent, never have been.
Well there has been no Third World War. Clearly they worked.
-
How are there ever going to be enough people in the world like it if you want us to keep something to melt people that we probably would never use, and even if we wanted to after someone's else first strike would only be after most of us were dead, so would only kill millions of ordinary people for no purpose? What does it actually achieve currently?
We can never know exactly whether the fact that we have Trident at the moment has been the most important reason why no other country in the world has chosen to use nuclear weapons, but the risk of removing our nuclear capability is far too great to take. I was pleased to hear Theresa May answer with a clear and definite, 'Yes,' when asked if she would press the button. I want in my remaining years to know that that action would be taken if necessary. Yes, of course, the results of one, let alone two, nuclear warheads being detonated is too horrible to contemplate but that in itself is why we haven't had one, nor are we likely to have one, , and I most sincerely hope my grandchildren and their future families will be able to live out their lives with the protection of nuclear capability.
You want to spend 200 billion on it, justify it.
It will be money well spent if there is continued absence of nuclear conflict.
-
We can never know exactly whether the fact that we have Trident at the moment has been the most important reason why no other country in the world has chosen to use nuclear weapons, but the risk of removing our nuclear capability is far too great to take. I was pleased to hear Theresa May answer with a clear and definite, 'Yes,' when asked if she would press the button. I want in my remaining years to know that that action would be taken if necessary. Yes, of course, the results of one, let alone two, nuclear warheads being detonated is too horrible to contemplate but that in itself is why we haven't had one, nor are we likely to have one, , and I most sincerely hope my grandchildren and their future families will be able to live out their lives with the protection of nuclear capability.
It will be money well spent if there is continued absence of nuclear conflict.
Italy and Germany don't have them. Should they be spending the money, how about Spain or Australia?
Why are you happy that the only use they will have is to kill millions of people? Your happiness at killing millions of innocent people is quite scary.
And if ypy don't have evidence for your position, which is made clear in the never know comment, then it's as useful as Pascal's Wager.
-
Why are you happy that the only use they will have is to kill millions of people? Your happiness at killing millions of innocent people is quite scary.
Actually, Susan's case is that their use is to prevent the killing of millions of people.
According to popular "wisdom" if you have to press the button, the deterrent has failed because it failed to deter, but the nuclear deterrent has never been about deterring nuclear war, it has been about deterring a conventional war that the West can't win.
-
Actually, Susan's case is that their use is to prevent the killing of millions of people.
According to popular "wisdom" if you have to press the button, the deterrent has failed because it failed to deter, but the nuclear deterrent has never been about deterring nuclear war, it has been about deterring a conventional war that the West can't win.
how can their ' use' prevent the killing of millions? Note not threat of use but 'use' which both Susan and your post refer to.
-
how can their ' use' prevent the killing of millions? Note not threadt of use but 'use' which both Susan and your post refer to.
No, you are applying restrictions to the term "use" that I do not accept. The use (or utility) of a deterrent of any sort is to stop the other guy from doing something you don't want him to do. The argument is that a nuclear deterrent justifies its existence by being there. The use is to stop millions of people from being killed, not to kill millions. If you have to actually press the button, the deterrent has already failed.
Just to be clear, I am arguing the case for the pro-trident side here but I'm not totally sure I agree with it.
-
No, you are applying restrictions to the term "use" that I do not accept. The use (or utility) of a deterrent of any sort is to stop the other guy from doing something you don't want him to do. The argument is that a nuclear deterrent justifies its existence by being there. The use is to stop millions of people from being killed, not to kill millions. If you have to actually press the button, the deterrent has already failed.
Just to be clear, I am arguing the case for the pro-trident side here but I'm not totally sure I agree with it.
I don't think use when you posit first strike use which your post did is applying restrictions?
-
I don't think use when you posit first strike use which your post did is applying restrictions?
The use or utility of nuclear weapons is to stop a war. The traditional use of the nuclear deterrent was to stop the USSR from rolling its tanks into Western Europe. All this bullshit about first strike was nonsense. Of course they were first strike.
-
The use or utility of nuclear weapons is to stop a war. The traditional use of the nuclear deterrent was to stop the USSR from rolling its tanks into Western Europe. All this bullshit about first strike was nonsense. Of course they were first strike.
So what was the issue with my content that you were supporting first use? Why did you challenge that statement? In what way was I applying restrictions to the term use?
-
Well there has been no Third World War. Clearly they worked.
There has been no third world war because we have a nuclear deterrent? More likely the devastation caused by the first and second world wars has been the deterrent. There have been, and still are, plenty of other wars since then, on lesser scale, that have not been deterred by nuclear bombs.
-
Well there has been no Third World War. Clearly they worked
Correlation = Causation? Really?
-
Perhaps the enthusiasts for Trident (or its replacement) could consider moving it from Faslane, which is a 30 minutes or so drive from here, to somewhere they could visit it regularly - the Thames estuary perhaps.
-
Perhaps the enthusiasts for Trident (or its replacement) could consider moving it from Faslane, which is a 30 minutes or so drive from here, to somewhere they could visit it regularly - the Thames estuary perhaps.
I can understand why you might, in theory, be nervous about the Trident base being near you.
But isn't that rather missing the whole point of it. The weapons, when operational, aren't in Faslane - they are somewhere under the ocean anywhere in the world and presumably undetectable. Blowing up Faslane would be rather pointless in the event of a major conflict, as whichever submarines were out on service would still be able to deploy their weapons just as easily as if Faslane hadn't been hit.
That's why they are on submarines with at least one constantly at sea rather than the earlier version which involved plane based nuclear devices, where destroying the air-base would have an effect, unless they were in the air all the time.
-
And of course people blowing up things only follow logic and you wouldn't blow somewhere where they might be or are based because that would have no impact!
Anyway who cares, you want to spend billions to have the chance to kill millions.
-
The votes have been counted and we are going to keep Trident so it is out of our hands for now.
-
Dear Prof,
they are somewhere under the ocean anywhere in the world and presumably undetectable.
Presumably, that's a good word, as technology quickens I can see a new game emerging, kids will be playing Pokemon on the bridge of our submarines.
The SDLP hit the nail on the head, this is a vanity project, we need to realise that we are no longer a super power, we also need to stop knee jerking to the U.S.A, the U.S.A can afford nuclear, we can't, time to step away from our alliance with America.
Time to say, we are British, we are not the poor cousins of America, time to step away from weapons of mass destruction and look at what we really need to function in this changing world, what we need is a fully functioning fully equipped Army, Navy and Air Force.
A Trident missile does not stop terrorism, terrorists laugh at Trident, in the full knowledge that we will never use it, it is a joke well past its sell date.
Gonnagle.
-
The votes have been counted and we are going to keep Trident so it is out of our hands for now.
so we might as well shut up about now and just ignore how few labour MPs might have opposed it
-
Well that's not my opinion, I am certainly wary of MPs who voted to keep it. Theresa May at the top of the list. Corbyn, as expected, voted to scrap it but many Labour MPs disagreed, leading to more controversy regarding the divisions in labour. As I am and have always been against nuclear armaments I will always speak out against them and in the future, a similar vote may arise. However for the moment the deed is done, by 472 votes to 117, The SNP have asked for it to be removed from Scotland.
-
Well that's not my opinion, I am certainly wary of MPs who voted to keep it. Theresa May at the top of the list. Corbyn, as expected, voted to scrap it but many Labour MPs disagreed, leading to more controversy regarding the divisions in labour. As I am and have always been against nuclear armaments I will always speak out against them and in the future, a similar vote may arise. However for the moment the deed is done, by 472 votes to 117, The SNP have asked for it to be removed from Scotland.
Many Labour MPS? Do the arithmetic
-
I just looked it up and this is from the Grauniad, a few minutes ago: "Labour was split over the issue with about 60% of MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government."
-
I just looked it up and this is from the Grauniad, a few minutes ago: "Labour was split over the issue with about 60% of MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government."
My misreading of it. Thought you had many Labours MPs disagreeing with govt. You were correct. I was just shocked at how few disagreed with govt. Foolish boy!
-
I just looked it up and this is from the Grauniad, a few minutes ago: "Labour was split over the issue with about 60% of MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government."
Which lets not forget remains official Labour party policy.
So actually it was Corbyn who rebelled against his own party's official policy - has a leader of a major party ever rebelled against their own official policy before.
-
And of course people blowing up things only follow logic and you wouldn't blow somewhere where they might be or are based because that would have no impact!
If you are a terrorist you don't target massively defended, pretty well impenetrable strategic military bases.
No you hit soft targets, like national day celebrations, or rock concerts, or people in restaurants, or on tube trains, or watching a marathon, or working at a magazine.
You are more likely (albeit still exceptionally unlikely) to be directly harmed by terrorism attending next month's Edinburgh festival than because you live 30 mins from Faslane.
-
A Trident missile does not stop terrorism, terrorists laugh at Trident,
Trident isn't intended to stop terrorism
in the full knowledge that we will never use it,
We haven't deployed the missiles, but the deterrent is used 24/7 - that's the point it's presence deters, for example, North Korea from considering using their own weapons. Whether we would use it if an enemy made a pre-emptive strike we don't know as it has never happened yet. And maybe the fact that there never has been a need to find our demonstrates its effectiveness as a deterrent.
it is a joke well past its sell date.
Gonnagle.
So you know what the future will bring. Don't forget that the Trident replacement is planned to be in operation between about 2030 and 2060. Do you know what threats we will be facing then Gonners? If not how can you be clear it is past its sell by date. Sure front and centre of our concerns right now is terrorism (but that wasn't the case 20 years ago and might not be in 20 years time), but there remain concerns about rogue states with nuclear weapons. It is perfectly plausible that in 20 years time the terrorists we worry about now will have taken hold of countries across the middle east and be developing, or have developed nuclear weapons.
We cannot know the future, however we can plan for it as best we can.
-
My misreading of it. Thought you had many Labours MPs disagreeing with govt. You were correct. I was just shocked at how few disagreed with govt. Foolish boy!
I too was shocked NS, and disappointed.
-
We would be daft to get rid of Trident, we need as a deterrent, imo.
-
We would be daft to get rid of Trident, we need as a deterrent, imo.
This makes no sense.
If you have to use it because you've been attacked then it hasn't worked as a deterrent.
If you use it before you've been attacked then it is not being used as a deterrent.
Can you tell me under exactly what circumstances you would use a nuclear weapon?
-
Floopowder, having nuclear weapons did not stop the wars from happening in Vietnam, Kossova, Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
There will always be wars. However, as unpleasant as they are, so far nuclear weapons have so far prevented WW3 because if they are used in anger that will be it, end of for all of us.
-
There will always be wars. However, as unpleasant as they are, so far nuclear weapons have so far prevented WW3 because if they are used in anger that will be it, end of for all of us.
No as noted earlier; correlation does not equal causation.
-
Well in this case I believe it does.
-
Well in this case I believe it does.
Belief eh?
So you are asking me to take your word for this matter, on your belief.
Hmmm......don't you take others to task over such a flimsy thing as belief elsewhere on this board? ;)
-
I think you need to give more of a reasoned argument, floo, as others have done. If you don't have one, borrow one from someone else, at least you will have to read it. As has been previously noted, there have been many wars - not 'world wars' but devastating all the same, think Vietnam and our current wars - which have occurred despite the big world powers having nuclear weapons.
-
Correlation = Causation? Really?
You are, of course, correct that we can't easily understand causation. Nor of course can we know what would have happened over the past 70 years had we not had nuclear weapons 'on both sides' as it were.
All we can say with confidence is that in the 66 years in which more than one country has had nuclear weapons they have not been used.
Now as much as we might like to 'un-invent' nuclear weapons that isn't possible and we need to deal with the reality of their existence.
-
As has been previously noted, there have been many wars - not 'world wars' but devastating all the same, think Vietnam and our current wars - which have occurred despite the big world powers having nuclear weapons.
That's true - and in many cases those wars have been 'proxy' conflicts between the superpowers, Vietnam being a good example. And what we can say is that as devastating as those wars were they did not escalate either into full scale global conflict between the superpowers, nor into a nuclear war.
Whether the presence of mutually assured destructive capability in the form of nuclear weapons on both sides prevented escalation can never be know definitively, but it is a reasonable explanation, particular as the history of the earlier part of the 20th century (in the pre-nuclear age) was that 'proxy conflict' between major powers had a tendency to escalate to the level of regional or even global conflict.
-
That's true - and in many cases those wars have been 'proxy' conflicts between the superpowers, Vietnam being a good example. And what we can say is that as devastating as those wars were they did not escalate either into full scale global conflict between the superpowers, nor into a nuclear war.
Whether the presence of mutually assured destructive capability in the form of nuclear weapons on both sides prevented escalation can never be know definitively, but it is a reasonable explanation, particular as the history of the earlier part of the 20th century (in the pre-nuclear age) was that 'proxy conflict' between major powers had a tendency to escalate to the level of regional or even global conflict.
Of course another reason has been positied recently - the existence of the EU.
-
Yes we do Prof and also, if they were scrapped, the knowledge of how to make them again would not be. That's something we will always have to live with. A sad state of affairs. By some accounts, Oppenheimer regretted being "The father of the atomic bomb".
(reply to your post-before-last)
-
Arguing for Trident, is the same as an argument for terrorism, isn't it? Terrorists might say, that if you invade my country, I will kill innocent people in your country. The Trident fans are saying, if you attack us, we will commit genocide in your country. <scratches head>
-
Of course another reason has been positied recently - the existence of the EU.
I would certainly agree that the presence of the EU has been a major factor preventing the escalation of european conflict. But I'm not sure that the EU was important in preventing the Korean conflict escalating in the 50s, or Vietnam and the cuban stand-off in the 60s. Or an escalation of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 90s, or a similar invasion of the same country by USA, UK and allies in the 2000s.
-
Dear Prof,
So you know what the future will bring. Don't forget that the Trident replacement is planned to be in operation between about 2030 and 2060. Do you know what threats we will be facing then Gonners? If not how can you be clear it is past its sell by date. Sure front and centre of our concerns right now is terrorism (but that wasn't the case 20 years ago and might not be in 20 years time), but there remain concerns about rogue states with nuclear weapons. It is perfectly plausible that in 20 years time the terrorists we worry about now will have taken hold of countries across the middle east and be developing, or have developed nuclear weapons.
We cannot know the future, however we can plan for it as best we can.
You are quite correct, who knows what the future will bring.
What I do know.
I do know that the funding for Trident could be better utilised, I do know that defeating terrorism should be our top priority, I do know that our armed forces are not fully equipped, I do know that our police force and NHS struggles with under funding, I do know that the immigration crisis is not going away, I do know that we still have foodbanks.
We have problems now that need to be addressed, throwing money at a supposedly future threat does nothing to solve our very present problems.
It is perfectly plausible that in 20 years time the terrorists we worry about now will have taken hold of countries across the middle east and be developing, or have developed nuclear weapons.
Correct again, which is why the funding for Trident could be better utilised, better Army, Navy and Air Force and of course better communication with every country threatened with terrorism and for me, terrorism is a global problem.
Finally, has someone answered the question, why do we need four nuclear submarines?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
You are quite correct, who knows what the future will bring.
What I do know.
I do know that the funding for Trident could be better utilised, I do know that defeating terrorism should be our top priority, I do know that our armed forces are not fully equipped, I do know that our police force and NHS struggles with under funding, I do know that the immigration crisis is not going away, I do know that we still have foodbanks.
We have problems now that need to be addressed, throwing money at a supposedly future threat does nothing to solve our very present problems.
Correct again, which is why the funding for Trident could be better utilised, better Army, Navy and Air Force and of course better communication with every country threatened with terrorism and for me, terrorism is a global problem.
Finally, has someone answered the question, why do we need four nuclear submarines?
Gonnagle.
I think this is a situation of either/or - we should be investing in all the things you suggest.
The point is that if we don't invest in replacement of trident we won't have a nuclear deterrent in 2030 onwards. We, of course cannot know what the future hold. However it is not unreasonable to consider that in 2030 to 2060 the situation may be such that the presence of an independent UK nuclear deterrent will be important and if we don't invest we won't have one.
I'm also rather sceptical about the focus on cost - certainly the headline figure of £40 billion looks eye watering, but you need to recognise that this may be spent over a 10 years period, so perhaps £4 billion per year. That would represent just 0.5% of public expenditure, so not proportionately a huge amount. Also this is money that is channeled back into the UK economy so its 'real' cost will be less, as a significant proportion will actually come back the government in tax revenues.
Now this doesn't change the fundamental argument about whether or not we should have a nuclear deterrent, but I actually think the argument against on cost grounds is a rather weak one.
Why four submarines - well this seems to be the minimum number that will guarantee that one is alway deployed. I'm not an expert, but that's what the experts do seem to think.
But the fundamental issue here is that any very major defence procurement takes decades, so you are always basing decisions on the unknown - in other words what the world situation will be in 20 or 30 years time. But just because we cannot be sure about that situation isn't a reason to do nothing.
-
Italy and Germany don't have them. Should they be spending the money, how about Spain or Australia?
Countries in europe can be confident that if the occasion should arise when that red button needs to be pressed, then there is a country nearby to do so. The risk to them, therefore, is far less than it would be to a country on the other side of the world.
As far as australia and NZ are concerned, they are so far away from anywhere else that the risk to them is as low as anywhere. However, we would be able to count on their solid support if the very worst happened.
Why are you happy that the only use they will have is to kill millions of people? Your happiness at killing millions of innocent people is quite scary.
That is an entirely false interpretation of my feelings on the subject and that should be obvious.
And if ypy don't have evidence for your position, which is made clear in the never know comment, then it's as useful as Pascal's Wager.
What does YPY stand for? Screen readder pronounces it as 'ippy'.
-
Why are you happy that the only use they will have is to kill millions of people? Your happiness at killing millions of innocent people is quite scary.
I think that completely misunderstands the issue.
I think those that support nuclear deterrents do so on the basis that the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides (noting that you can't uninvent them) massively reduces the likelihood that they will actually be used, and therefore rather than being weapons aimed at killing millions they are aims at preventing millions being killed as they make their actual use unthinkable because of mutually assured restriction.
Now I'm not saying I am necessary right on this (how can any of us know, beyond recognising that since more than one power has had these weapons they haven't been used) but please don't misconstrue the intentions of those that support a deterrent.
We don't want to kill millions, quite the reverse, we think this is the most likely way, in a pragmatic sense, to ensure that millions aren't killed by nuclear weapons.
-
Actually, Susan's case is that their use is to prevent the killing of millions of people.
According to popular "wisdom" if you have to press the button, the deterrent has failed because it failed to deter, but the nuclear deterrent has never been about deterring nuclear war, it has been about deterring a conventional war that the West can't win.
My thanks to you and Prof D for your posts. It seems to me that those who do not agree with maintaining the nuclear deterrent miss the central, most important point that if we had no such deterrent, we would be taking on an unacceptable risk which would affect and seriously let down not only us and our neighbours, but also future generations.
-
This makes no sense.
If you have to use it because you've been attacked then it hasn't worked as a deterrent.
If you use it before you've been attacked then it is not being used as a deterrent.
Can you tell me under exactly what circumstances you would use a nuclear weapon?
Perhaps you could have a go at saying why, whenan occasion occurs, we did not have one? How would you/governments explain to those still alive after the devastationthat we dismantled ours long ago?
Please note: this is not written with any sarcasm.
-
Dear Prof,
Well the cost was much debated in the Commons yesterday, figure such as 150 billion up to 350 billion, but for me it is about priorities, just heard on the news that a extra 4 billion will be invested in the NHS over the next four years and not the governments 8 billion they promised.
We can't fund our NHS properly but we have funds for WMD.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Susan,
From what I have read, Germany and Italy do have nuclear bombs, but with the U.S.A's finger on the trigger.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
You are quite correct, who knows what the future will bring.
What I do know.
I do know that the funding for Trident could be better utilised, I
A bold assertion! I shall be interested to hear your convincing arguments, which must, of course, consider the future 50-100 years.
-
Dear Prof,
Well the cost was much debated in the Commons yesterday, figure such as 150 billion up to 350 billion, but for me it is about priorities, just heard on the news that a extra 4 billion will be invested in the NHS over the next four years and not the governments 8 billion they promised.
We can't fund our NHS properly but we have funds for WMD.
Gonnagle.
But most of that cost we are already paying as it is the cost of maintaining and running the system, rather than its replacement.
Sure I understand it is about priorities, but that isn't all or nothing. If we don't replace trident we won't have an independent nuclear deterrent. If we don't invest an additional £4 billion per year in the NHS we will still have an NHS but it will have slightly less funding (of the order of 3% less).
But this is turning into a Brexit style overly-simplistic argument - lets spend £350m more a week on the NHS - things are somewhat more complicated than that.
-
So what was the issue with my content that you were supporting first use? Why did you challenge that statement? In what way was I applying restrictions to the term use?
You were talking about "use" in the narrow sense of what happens after you press the button. I am talking in a more general sense. i.e. nuclear weapons are used to deter a war.
Once somebody presses the button and uses them in your sense, their usage in my sense has become a failure.
-
There has been no third world war because we have a nuclear deterrent? More likely the devastation caused by the first and second world wars has been the deterrent.
How do you know?
There have been, and still are, plenty of other wars since then, on lesser scale, that have not been deterred by nuclear bombs.
Correct, but these are not the wars that the nuclear deterrent was designed to deter.
-
Correlation = Causation? Really?
I was merely criticising the unsupported assertion that nuclear weapons have not deterred the third world war. There hasn't been a third world war. If nuclear weapons had failed at their task there would have been one.
-
Perhaps you could have a go at saying why, whenan occasion occurs, we did not have one? How would you/governments explain to those still alive after the devastationthat we dismantled ours long ago?
Please note: this is not written with any sarcasm.
My point is that we hold nuclear weapons as a deterrent, supposedly.
For there to be a strike on us some madman or mad woman would have to have pressed the button. Deterrent failed. Are we then going to make a very bad situation worse by using our failed deterrent.
My main argument is not really about the rights and wrongs of nuclear weapons - it is about the nature of humanity. Either by aforementioned madman or by good old human error we will see these weapons used at some point. I'm sorry if that sounds pessimistic but the human race has proved itself very capable of initiating the 'cock up' process throughout history - that's without the added incentive of lunatic terrorists mixing it all up.
My basic question remains: When would our PM use the nuclear deterrent? How would it help the situation? In the face of lunatics it is not a deterrent. I still do not see how this stands up to any scrutiny.
-
Dear Trent,
It all seems to me to be so, up in the air thinking, pie in the sky stuff, if someone strikes at us do we immediately reply, do we have a meeting, is it discussed.
Just reading about the letters of last resort, the top guy in the Sub makes the decision if we lose our government, or if he can't hear radio 4 :o :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
So this means that if the government of Westminster is taken out, the guy in the sub runs to Australia or the U.S.A, he doesn't contact our First Minister or Wales or Northern Ireland.
But then you don't strike at Westminster, do you :o if I was to attack it would be Faslane or where ever our subs are parked ( do you park a sub ) berth, anchor.
Very infuriating this Trident question, all very Old Testament >:(
Gonnagle.