Trident.

[Brownie]

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. 

[floo]

We would be daft to get rid of Trident, we need as a deterrent,  imo.

[Aruntraveller]

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?

[Brownie]

Floopowder, having nuclear weapons did not stop the wars from happening in Vietnam, Kossova, Afghanistan and Iraq.

[floo]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[floo]

Well in this case I believe it does.

[Aruntraveller]

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? 

[Brownie]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Brownie]

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)

[wigginhall]

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>

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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'.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.