Trident.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[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 I should stop reading posts on this forum and reading the news do they still do those flotation tank thingy's, I think I need a couple of months in one of those things.

Gonnagle.

[Brownie]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jakswan]

Why isn't the debate about moving Trident, leaving it in a soon to be foreign country is madness.

[Gonnagle]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17026538

Mutually Assured Destruction or just plain Mad

Gonnagle.

 

[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.

[Brownie]

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/

[Udayana]

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.

[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.

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.

[Gordon]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.'

[Udayana]

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.
 

[Udayana]

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?

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[SusanDoris]

I'll have a go a bit later - it's swimming in a minute!

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[wigginhall]

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.

 

[Udayana]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

The only long term answer is multi-lateral disarmament.

  in the long term.....

[Nearly Sane]

interesting that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee  has just said he will vote against Trident because 'we need more rational decisions'