Trident.

[Hope]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Brownie]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Well there has been no Third World War. Clearly they worked

Correlation = Causation? Really?

[Gordon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Brownie]

The votes have been counted and we are going to keep Trident so it is out of our hands for now.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Brownie]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Brownie]

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."

[Nearly Sane]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.