I think the bigger question is as yet unasked!

If we're going to get a new and updated version of the sub-based nuclear deterrent, are we going to use the old one for something worthwhile, or just go for the boring option and dismantle it?

I suppose we could do what everyone else does with their 2nd hand crap, and stick it on Ebay.

Not really tron – I am using debating tactics I accept but I really can see no logical reason for the nukes and nothing that anyone has posted on this thread gives any logical reason for having them.

You are using debating tactics. What you always want is proof. And in the real world proof is very hard to come by.

That's shown by just how narrow most academic research questions are, and how few papers actually produce proof of anything. Or a simple look through old market research reports – despite experts spending a lot of time and money on them, they don't predict the future.

But of course, you already know this. You know that proof cannot be provided for the majority of things, even things which are accepted by society at large, and even used in the creation of technology, are still only theories, not actually proven. Indeed, you seem to regularly demand proof on subjects which are still matters of debate for field experts.

You use this simple tactic to close down arguments and declare yourself proven correct.

Tron – On this one I would accept an argument that was not full of logical holes. Even evidence short of proof would do.

However no one has given anything but assumptions and extrapolations that do not hang together logically and no one has produced a shred of evidence.

Its not difficult is it? Make a logical case with at least some evidence to back it up. Instead all I see is massive logical fallacies and tautology.

Edit – loads of circular argument as well.

So why have these weapons then? If there is no logical argument for having them, why do so have them and want them?

Macho posturing el bent? Different countries have different needs. I don't think there is a credible threat against the UK that could be deterred now.

the trouble is the pro arguments are very much the 'politics of fear'

which is not a very nice way to live

So what is your proof/reasoning that a deterrent is of no value?

You've been very quiet on this and spent most of the time attempting to pick holes in people's logic/reasoned arguments. Your defence for abolishing it has been notably lacking, apart from "we can't afford it" and "money is better spent elsewhere".

Your "proof" of using previous conflicts as evidence it doesn't work is based purely on conjecture, as is me saying we've not been nuked yet so it must work.

Look, we need the damned things because we had an empire, and now we don't. We won the world cup 40 odd years ago, and we've kicked a few smaller nations around. We still like to think that we're important.

If we don't have nukes, the French will make fun of us at the UN and European parliament. It'll be just like that episode of Flight of the Conchords where Murray gets in the lift with the Aussies and they ask if he's got NZ's mineral exports for the year in his pocket.

And we can't have that, so we need an independent nuclear deterrent. OK? 😆

Macho posturing el bent?

That's the best you've got?

elbent – its the only reason I can see for wanting them ( I wasn't accusing you of macho posturing)

Mintman. Its up to those who want to have nukes to make the case for having them.

Tron well said!

Wouldn't a tactical-nuke aircraft-based system be more flexible in this post Cold War situation?

Its main strength is that no one knows where they are!
not even management know where they are, they just know they are "over there, somewhere"

I think this thread became a pointless farce filled with lightweight tosh at the point that TJ got away with describing a doctrine of strategic deterrence as "macho posturing".

This is roughly the equivalent in terms of insight and analysis as calling for the abolition of the NHS because it is do-gooder bollocks that doesn't abolish human mortality. 🙂

Mintman. Its up to those who want to have nukes to make the case for having them

Well that is where you are wrong. It is up to us to argue to keep them (which we have) and for you to argue to remove them (which you haven't). Since the pro-lobby is arguing for the status quo (albeit with an update to the system), I would suggest that the against-lobby has the greater challenge in front of them.

You claimed you were using debating tactics in this thread and you clearly are not. Simply rebutting the pro-lobby argument without providing a counter-argument is not even close to debating; anyone can say "that's a rubbish argument"; it is the counter argument that adds value and that is clearly lacking.

So the pro-group are putting forward arguments but you do not; hardly an informed debate is it.

Waste of money, end of. Split the difference between public healthcare and conventional forces.

Either that, or use the Trident budget to build a ****-off massive trebuchet – just for laughs.

It'll be just like that episode of Flight of the Conchords where Murray gets in the lift with the Aussies and they ask if he's got NZ's mineral exports for the year in his pocket.

thats my favourite episode

I think I have understood why we need Trident:

We don't believe anyone loves us enough to defend us against a nuclear threat, so we have to defend ourselves.

From BBC website

The US state department says there "will definitely be consequences" for North Korea following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

The North is facing international condemnation after investigators blamed it for the sinking of the ship, in which 46 sailors died.

Pyongyang has rejected the claim as a "fabrication" and threatened war if sanctions were imposed.

can some people not see why we would need trident?

flatfish – Member
From BBC website
The US state department says there "will definitely be consequences" for North Korea following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.
The North is facing international condemnation after investigators blamed it for the sinking of the ship, in which 46 sailors died.

Pyongyang has rejected the claim as a "fabrication" and threatened war if sanctions were imposed.
can some people not see why we would need trident?

Nope. What are you suggesting? We'd nuke N Korea?

when they start chucking nukes about we send a few buckets of sunshine back their way.
i didn't suggest starting anything.

I got pretty bored with this thread after a while(largely due to TJ demanding impossible answers, but I guess he knew that) 😉 , but a couple of points to add. There are 3 people onboard a bomber at any time who know exactly where the boat is and where its going to be (apart from changes due to having to get into a launch position, which aren't known until as necessary) also somebody mentioned that those onboard knew they were dead the minute they launched, well I can tell you having spent many years onboard I never felt that that was the case.

As for reasons for having trident? never gave it a thought it was just a job.

Do you know what? Talking is cheaper than fighting every time. Pretty much every conflict ends with the participants sitting around a table and talking. So how about we invest in some more tables and give the rest of it a miss?

Berm Bandit – Member
Do you know what? Talking is cheaper than fighting every time. Pretty much every conflict ends with the participants sitting around a table and talking. So how about we invest in some more tables and give the rest of it a miss?

Becuase you may need a stick and/or carrot to get them to the afore mentioned table.

Best stick is economic sanctions best carrot is not economic sannctions.

We don't need it it is just showing off. Apparently we have the worlds 5th largest defense budget which seems a bit mad…

joolsburger – Member
Best stick is economic sanctions best carrot is not economic sannctions.

Economic sanctions don't (and never have) work against North Korea. They export little to nothing and care litle if their people starve while defying the rest of the world.

We don't need it it is just showing off. Apparently we have the worlds 5th largest defense budget which seems a bit mad…

…Not when you consider that we have the 6th largest economy.

Ok lets try it another way.

Anyone know what the current spend on the Afgahn war is ? (all in ?) the times online suggests that it might be as much as £2,500,000,000,000 the population of Afgahnistan is about 29 million. So in essence we could give them about £86,000 per person to improve their lot, in return for nailing any Al Qaeda type nasty ****, and at the same time save the lives of several hundred troops, for the same money. Halve that, and you.saved a huge amount and still been able to give every man woman and child £43,000 each.

Are you seriously telling me that what we are doing makes finacial, political or moral sense, when we all know that it won't get sorted by force of arms, much less by the possession of Trident??

There is a reason why Germany and Japan have two of the strongest economies in the world, and you don't have to look too far past the bit where they haven't spent the last 65 years funding a mahoosive standing military force.

Economic sanctions don't (and never have) work against North Korea

Presumably that "don't care doesn't hurt" attitude is why they are threatening war if sanctions are imposed then?

There are 3 people onboard a bomber at any time who know exactly where the boat is and where its going to be (apart from changes due to having to get into a launch position, which aren't known until as necessary) also somebody mentioned that those onboard knew they were dead the minute they launched, well I can tell you having spent many years onboard I never felt that that was the case.

Not sure if you're talking about bomber aircraft or subs here, but certainly bomber aircraft crews didn't have a big chance of making it back. Lots of issues with flash blindness and there being no runway to land on once you got home…

There is a reason why Germany and Japan have two of the strongest economies in the world, and you don't have to look too far past the bit where they haven't spent the last 65 years funding a mahoosive standing military force.

The Japanese economy is distinctly unhealthy.

So how will us having trident or its replacement make any difference to North Korea?

I have been accused of being illogical and asking impossible questions but they are only impossible because there is no answer

The questions are

Who are we deterring by having this?
What does it deter them from?
Why would conventional forces not do as well?

We aren't going to be nuking anyone anytime soon or for that matter, ever.

I'm all for the armed forces but only when they are used for stuff we should be involved in. I'm given to understand that they are a bit short of stuff they actually need but have all the nukes they want.

90 Billion over 10 years would cover half the total deficit including public sector pensions. if we scrapped trident the worst case, 30 billion of that gets spent on incremental expenses (scapping the old stuff, paying fines to exisiting contractors and suppliers etc etc ) That's still around a third of the deficit. Can't we do that and then buy some nukes if we have a few spare pounds then..

I sppoose we could go and see Ocean finance, consolidate all our debts into one monthly payment and still have enough left over for some new tridents or would that be completely mad?

The Japanese economy is distinctly unhealthy.

Compared to what over the last 65 years precisely?

Compared to what over the last 65 years precisely?

Compared to say, the Japanese economy pre 1990.

So you are suggesting comparing the Japense economy from 1945 to date with the Japanese economy from 1925 to 1990? I suspect you may well still find that it has generally been one of the top performers during both of those periods.

Your point caller?

Trident might be the thing that makes North Korea listen to the Western World…. Or is it…?

The continuous at sea deterrent might be the one reason that America would get involved in any EU driven action, after all, its the one thing we can offer America (militarily anyway)… Or is it…?

Who are we deterring by having this?
What does it deter them from?
Why would conventional forces not do as well?

a. Impossible to answer because no-one (that I know anyway) can predict the future and you know this so again, it's a silly question.

B. Extreme violence against the UK and her territories but anymore detail is impossible because, again, we cannot predict the future.

C. They can't be inserted into a country at a speed that means they are almost 100% likely to hit their target.

Why have weapons? deterrent to countries like China who will invade any weaker country based on their past 60 yrs.

It's 'insurance'. I believe this country is relatively civilised, some countries who are capable of producing & delivering a nuclear weapon or are working on such projects are not (IMO) as civilised as ourselves. I also believe that some smaller countries such as Iran/NK would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons without much provocation.
I'm no expert, It's just my thought.

Ok mintman – we certainly will never agree and I ain't buying a single one of your arguments but:
1) – we have a policy of no first use of nukes – so we can only use them against other nuke owner – this used to be the USSR was the country they were aimed against but I suppose we have to add France, USA, Israel, India and Pakistan and China to the list. Thats the lot isn't it? Iran and North Korea in the future maybe.

B) -Who realistically is going to threaten these islands? again – the policy is no first use – so we are not going to be able to use them against realistic threats to us ( Mad mullahs etc) Who in this day and age is going to invade the UK anyway? The whole doctrine was about the USSR

3) The deterrent effect of the firestorm over Baghdad is as big surely – and we can use exactly the same delivery systems for conventional weapons as Nukes.

Zaskar – would we nuke China if they invaded say laos? No first use doctrine remeber. Thats a major change from previous doctrine

When countries such as Australia and New Zealand, Argentina and so on can be safe without them and without any Nuclear umbrella at all then why are we so different that we need them?

I've got a hunch that we have differing opinions on this matter but that's why it's good to discuss these things. You say we'll never agree but you've yet to put forward an argument to sway me. Even in your most recent post you expect me to state who might attack the UK which remains an impossible question to answer.

As an aside, the delivery system for Trident is completely unlike conventional systems. Delivering it like a conventional missile will dramatically reduce it's ability to hit it's target unhindered.

You say that non-nuclear countries are safe but how do you know this?just because they've not been attacked yet doesn't mean they won't be. Would we have reclaimed the Falklands if Argentina had possessed a nuclear deterrent?

If we stick to the doctrine of "no first use" then we can only use them against other nuke owning countries after they have let off a nuke and I think I got the full list. I don't see any of them as a threat now or in the future to these islands – maybe to their neighbours but not to us. Why would they?

I am very doubtful the concept of deterrence would work with zealots anyway.

My point about the delivery system is we could use the trident missiles with conventional warheads – How many in each sub? 40 or so IIRC – and payload? Half a tonne? Dunno really. Enough to flatten any capital city even with conventional explosives I would have thought.

You say about the Falklands but our Nukes did not stop argentina capturing the Falklands.

I simply cannot see a role for them in the post cold war world. I cannot see a credible enemy who would be deterred by them. Credible enemies are hard to see – why would Iran want to invade the UK? Current doctrine would not allow us to use them in defence of a third country – and anyway Israel has its own and they are the most likely target.

I was very sceptical of them in the cold war – nothing that anyone has said since makes any sense to me as a case for having them now in a post cold war world

Rogue states or religious zealots would not be deterred, we couldn't use them against no nuclear states anyway, other countries don't feel the need and many have no nuke umbrella such as Argentina or Chile or NZ

If we ever use them, we all die.
Why not just spend £1Bn pretending we have an updated system.

For that money, it could be made pretty convincing.