To me Trident is to nice to have and in reality everyone knows it will never be used. Even if it was used we would be wiping out the other side just for the sake of wiping out the other side. The majority of us would be dead anyway before anyone ever pressed the big red button. Most people agree that the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons but the issue is how do you go about doing this. Personally I don't really care about the cost of Trident but I do care when our troops don't have the best equipment and enough if it as the MOD can't afford it, but we still run a weapons system that will never be used.
So should we have a referendum on Trident as to me it is a moral question of not only do we want nuclear weapons but also our standing in the world. Personally I don't think it is wonderful that we are on the UN Security Council just because we have nuclear weapons. Wouldn't it be amazing if we were the first major nation to give up nuclear weapons, even if we kept the design and capability ready to go.
One of the few decent things to happen politically this year would be not renewing trident.
But these politicians love playing soldiers with their toys.
No.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we were the first major nation to give up nuclear weapons.
I'd rather we were last.
What could possibly go wrong?
Wouldn't it be amazing if we were the first major nation to give up nuclear weapons.
It would but there's still those that think we need a them.
in reality everyone knows it will never be used. Even if it was used we would be wiping out the other side just for the sake of wiping out the other side
That is rather the whole point of it...
How many millions a week would the NHS get?
If the last referendum taught us anything it's that if we had a referendum on trident, we'd end up with more of them with immigrants strapped to them ready to be sent 'home'.
if it as the MOD can't afford it
It's about 5% of the MOD budget, and most of that is in the boats, crew and infrastructure, we can more than afford it.
Indeed, It would take a lot more than a 5-10% bigger army/navy/airforce to even begin to offer the same global reach or deterrent effect.
We hear a lot about 'cost' but using an accounting system where a new hospital would cost best part of a £billion (capital cost plus fifty years staff, materials and running costs at current prices)
Saying that it's wasted because it's never used is like saying we don't need tanks, because we haven't had a major tank battle for years, don't need a fire brigade, because they rarely put out fires, and don't need house insurance because you've never been burgled.
except for the fact they all happen and no one has ever tried to obliterate a country in all out nuclear war even the ones who dont have nukes.
Are you really saying if we give them up that its we are done for?
Secondly we are in NATO so any attack on us has to be retaliated on so you have to completely destroy more than us.
Its like having specific costly insurance for asteroid strike to your bike yes it might happen but not really.
If we must have a deterrent to appease the gun toting types then lets have something cheaper.
no one has ever tried to obliterate a country in all out nuclear war even the ones who dont have nukes.
Yeah, but:
[img] 
[/img]
Secondly we are in NATO so any attack on us has to be retaliated on
Unless we get attacked by the USA - and I can't see France stepping in to retaliate against them on our behalf
Nuclear Weapons are from the cold war era, two superpowers standing off against each other. We are no longer in that situation.
It is a time of asymmetric warfare, where nuclear weapons are completely useless.
We are no longer in that situation.
You better tell Putin, he's been stepping up the rhetoric recently about us heading for ww3 and we've just sent troops in the baltic to counter Russian maneuvers.
Not to mention the Russian invasion of the Crimea...
It is a time of asymmetric warfare, where nuclear weapons are completely useless.
Sorry, have we given up on conventional weapons? I thought we had both, and both serve different purposes and deter against different threats.
if you could predict what would happen in the future, you might have a point, but if I told you twenty years ago that Russia would invade two neighbouring countries you would have laughed at me.
(Edit, great minds think alike)
Secondly we are in NATO so any attack on us has to be retaliated on so you have to completely destroy more than us.
Not always
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457033/html/ ]Falklands[/url]
And where were the Yanks on that bit of our special relationship? Well out of it, that's where!
I would like to get rid of them but the world is a very uncertain place and becoming more so. The deterrent effect might be vital in the event of wider proliferation of such weapons and the possibility that the US could become isolationist.
Makes me very sad that my kids live in a world where such things exist 🙁
And where were the Yanks on that bit of our special relationship? Well out of it, that's where!
To be fair to the Spam's, it was hardly in the North Atlantic 😀
However it's not long back that Turkey shot down a Russian jet, or indeed that "Russian separatists" shot down a Dutch airliner full of civilians. Both of them could quite easily escalated into major international incidents.
I can't really see anytime when we would use them. We would be killing millions of innocent people and even if IS had a bomb would we really wipe out half of Syria? Even if there was a time I can't see why we can't keep the capability and parts moth balled and ready to go if every needed. It's not like wars just suddenly happen. There are usually months and years of increasing tensions. I agree that we need flexibility but us riding ourselves of nuclear weapons would make a far bigger and far reaching statement about this country than anything else. 99% of other countries seem perfectly happy and safe without them so why do we need them. And if we think they are so important to our security why are we not helping our friends to be protected by them as well. Even South Korea doesn't have them and there capital is near miles away from the biggest nut job of a country that is proactively developing nuclear weapons.
I just think a referendum would be really good chance to discuss the options and reasons in both sides. The thing that was great about the eu referendum was everyone was talking about it and was engaged in politics, irrelevant of the outcome. This engagement needs to be encouraged.
Regarding The Falklands didn't the US give us tons of logistical support on the quiet.
You better tell Putin, he's been stepping up the rhetoric recently about us heading for ww3
Yes its only our subs stopping him bombing us 🙄
there is a long long way from rhetoric to actual nuking a country.
Not always
[b]The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America[/b] shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Ok we risk losing the territories we stole from the world that are not in those geographical nations
Second point we had nukes it did not stop the argentians.
Putin is extremely unlikely to start a war with the West. He knows it will be far too costly for Russia. He managed to get away with annexing Crimea because we have been completely useless at responding to him, and Europe seems to be incompetent at dealing with it.
What is really needed is the reform of the UN P5- so Russia and the US can stop using their vetoes. This is what cripples any effective action being taken against states. Yet this will never happen unfortunately.
even if IS had a bomb would we really wipe out half of Syria?
Again, you're looking at a single threat.
Tell me, if North Korea nuked Seoul, killing millions, and then rolled over the border, (in almost unseen numbers, that were impossible to stop with available conventional forces) would you view Tactical nuclear weapons as a viable option? I would.
Putin is extremely unlikely to start a war with the West.
We have nukes. He can only push it so far. I doubt we'd let him invade too many more European countries.
Second point we had nukes it did not stop the argentians.
We had conventional forces too, maybe we should disband them because they didn't act as a deterrent?
Can we not just bluff it and say we do have it?
Tell me, if North Korea nuked Seoul, killing millions, and then rolled over the border, (in almost unseen numbers, that were impossible to stop with available conventional forces) would you view Tactical nuclear weapons as a viable option? I would.
Tactical nuclear weapons is a bit like tactically nuking from orbit
What would you be preserving exactly?
If North korea did this we would wipe them off the map. they knwo this
they want nues to stop us wiping them off the face of the earth
using them assures their destruction.
Tactical nuclear weapon is an oxymoron
We can either raise an area to the ground and render it uninhabitable for a wee while or not use them.
No surprise you would use them though. I was only surprised you were not interested in pre emptive strikes.... I admire your restraint 😉
Can we not just bluff it and say we do have it?
Didn't end well for the last fella to try that.
Yes, we should have a referendum - and then the people who voted to keep them can live next to them. Scotland repeatedly polls against renewing the things, and it's likely that if there's a vote then nearly every Scottish MP will vote against renewal, but as usual we'll have them imposed on us.
If North korea did this we would wipe them off the map. they knwo this
Hurrah, so you now accept that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent
Perfect!
we'll have them imposed on us.
How did you work that out? They live at the bottom of the Atlantic.
You also seem to overlook how much of the national nuclear weapons infrastructure is in the middle of Berkshire
But most other countries don't need them so why do WE. Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Australuia, etc. What makes us any different? They are all fine nations wanting a peaceful world.
They're not as good at making enemies as we are.
But most other countries don't need them so why do WE.
Because we still think we matter.
Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, etc.
Although of them were perfectly happy to live under the protection of US nuclear weapons (whether publically declared or not, all had close ties with US nuclear forces, many of them being incorporated into weapons sharing agreements)
What makes us any different
We have learned through bitter experience not to rely completely on US intervention a in time of crisis?
Who said we were going to use nuclear weapons?so you now accept that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent
How long have they not had nukes? Have they been invaded?
I said why they wanted them not what I thought.
IMHO having nukes is like having a grenade when someone wants to stab me. its of no real use to me but it might stop them stabbing me as we are both definitely dead if they do. However there are no real credible threats to nuke us and its so unlikely that i think we need nukes as much as I need a hand grenade.
Personally I think it has probably brought us closer to MAD than it has preserved peace but you can make an argument either way.
Who said we were going to use nuclear weapons?
Ok, so what [u]exactly[/u] did you mean when you said:
If North korea did this we would wipe them off the map
?
There's already been a decision on this , our Nicola has already agreed to swap trident for the Lake District after indyref2. She's a star turn is our Nicola.
I can't really see anytime when we would use them. We would be killing millions of innocent people and even if IS had a bomb would we really wipe out half of Syria?
This is the understandable but incorrect thinking about modern nuclear weapons. Trident has a selectable yield estimated to be around 0.3-0.5kt, 10-20kt and around 100kt. You don't need to kill millions if you only need to destroy an army battle group or the enemies H.Q.
For reference Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by air burst (which somewhat limits fall-out but maximises the destructive over pressure) both bombs were around 10-12kt give or take - so a single Trident warhead can be around 20 times smaller or 10 times bigger - each missile can carry one or many warheads. This means the PM has a number of options should he/she find themselves facing the unthinkable.
I'd happily see all nations retiring nuclear weapons, maybe one day...
How do they fly ?
To answer the question, no we shouldn't have a referendum on Trident.
It's not something Joe Public should be deciding on IMO.
I think the idea that we could quickly knock one up when needed is quite ambitious too!
Can't we lay off the referendums for a bit?
Keep on and it won't be long before the more lunatic right wing tories and the daily Mail get one together for bringing back hanging.
It's not something Joe Public should be deciding on IMO.
Why are politicians in a better position to decide than Joe Public ?
I'm not arguing in favour of a referendum btw, but using that logic suggests that the issue of Trident shouldn't be in any party's election manifesto - what would be the point if it's not something Joe Public should be deciding ?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Trident: What the last few weeks have shown is that the best idea is not to have a referendum on the question.
Yes of course we should and it will be as equally as legally binding as the previous one that everyone is stil whinining about.
Maybe start a petition to have a referendum about it then another petition just in case you don't get a referendum
I think the argument would be that the precedent is for referendums on constitutional / matters of representation, rather than policy
personally I think there is something to be said for the Swiss system of semi-direct democracy with an annual series of referendums on issues that can be created by popular petition - it would clearly be an extremely radical diversion from the model of democracy we have at the moment, and I think many would not find it palatable given some of the potential referendums that could come about through that model.
no need for a referendum
irresponsible children should not be allowed fireworks.
all weapons are dumb and the people who think we need them are probably even dumber
everyone in the arms industry should just go home, do something constructive and let whatever lunatic despot or elected leader who thinks they have any power try to threaten people with whatever they can carry.
war games are stupid waste of life time and money.
my dad is bigger than your dad?...really? its time society grew up.
what about those crazy power mad loonies already out there bullying entire nations?
well maybe we should stop making and selling them weapons and ammunition?
Why are politicians in a better position to decide than Joe Public ?
Basically we don't know what's going on, and we don't get the full story.
Not that I'm saying politicians have the answers or our best interests heart either. Hopefully some experts have a greater influence.
And the public have showed how easily swayed they can be.
There's no profit in peace.
There's no profit in peace.
Hmm, there seems to be some question over the message here - I thought the money was wasted as we don't intend to actually use them, in which case there clearly is huge profit in peace?
Hmm, there seems to be some question over the message here - I thought the money was wasted as we don't intend to actually use them, in which case there clearly is huge profit in peace?
Not for the arms industry.
Not for the arms industry.
Exactly.
Well, no, the arms industry have clearly made shed loads of money out of nuclear weapons, despite the fact nobody has used them (and given the fact that everyone says there are no practical circumstances in which we could possibly contemplate using them, will go on making money out of them not being used)
In fact. Given the only circumstances where they could be used would mean complete destruction of the global military industrial complex, then the only way that the arms industry can make money from nuclear weapons is by ensuring that they are not used
What better example could there be of them making a profit from peace?
(and given the fact that everyone says there are no practical circumstances in which we could possibly contemplate using them, will go on making money out of them not being used)
IMO the scary thing is that no, not everyone does say that - especially outside of the UK. There have been numerous occasions when generals and politicians have argued for controlled use, actively threatened it, or dropped subtle hints that it is an option over the past 70 years.
The reality in the cold war period was that even limited use could be the tripwire to an all out response, hence MAD helped keep major powers too scared to directly fight each other. As weapons have got smaller, delivery systems smarter, and war - or undeclared war more unpredictable the likelihood of someone out there using a nuclear weapon in the not-to-distant future has unfortunately increased.
This will no doubt be part of the argument presented to MP's when they next vote on this. And we'd hope they take a better informed view on it than compared to many members of the public to Brexit; weighing up all the factors rather than purely looking at cost or perceived national pride.
My view is that if the UK doesn't vote to renew Trident with something similar it will have repercussions on how the UK is seen abroad - I don't think unilateral disarmament combined with Brexit would send the right kind of message at this time and is unlikely to aid global stability.
It's strange, because the recent EU debate has very much been discussed with the 'right' being cast as 'little Englanders'. However if the nuclear weapons debate gets split down left/right lines then we end up with the traditional 'little Englanders' arguing for the retention of global influence, and the traditional 'internationalists' arguing to remove it.
Very odd.
Yes your arse about tit logic is indeed very strange...its almost as if it was written to just have a dig at lefties at the expense of reason and logic 🙄
Little englanders want to keep a big stick to threaten our enemies [ who I am sure they see them everywhere] they are not "internationalist" and not interested in global influence. they are interested in being seen as hard though and well armed because they are stupid and insecure.
How many guns do you have again ?*
MAD helped keep major powers too scared to directly fight each other
SO you think we were safer then or now when we have pulled back from mad, are no tin an arms race and we have turned the rhetoric down from 12 to 3?
Its did not keep us safe it made nuclear obliviation more likely
Even the protagonist noticed this as they came very very close on a number of occasions.
the likelihood of someone out there using a nuclear weapon in the not-to-distant future has unfortunately increased.
No offence but utter bollocks.
Its never been less likely.
* enough for me your style of scribbling is easy to emulate but it adds **** all as we just type shit we dont really believe just to have a dig/get a rise.. You are bright and well informed but you do this too much for me to bother
See you next month 😉
ninfan - MemberIt's strange ... with the traditional 'little Englanders' arguing for the retention of global influence...
or, giving up nuclear weapons could be seen as a declaration of our desire to act as peaceful, cooperative neighbours, rather than bullies with a bigger stick.
you catch more bees with jam than vinegar, etc.
(i'm more or less ok with our nuclear weapons, but it's a little anti-social. in a bad analogy: we're a bit like my neighbour with the motorbike, who insists on revving it loudly for about 10minutes, early every sunday morning. yes i notice him, he definitely has 'influence', but i'd also quite like to punch him in the face)
If we decommision them what will we use to defend ourselves when the martians arrive??
ninfan - Member
...Saying that it's wasted because it's never used is like saying we don't ... need a fire brigade, because they rarely put out fires, and don't need house insurance because you've never been burgled.
When the fire brigade puts out a fire, they don't exterminate your family and neighbours as a side effect.
When the insurance pays out, they don't exterminate your family and neighbours as a side effect.
I hope you're not in the fire service or insurance industries.
if the Royal Navy manages to destroy mine and my neighbours houses and families with British nuclear weapons then someone's made a pretty critical targeting mistake...
ninfan - Member
if the Royal Navy manages to destroy mine and my neighbours houses and families with British nuclear weapons then someone's made a pretty critical targeting mistake...
They will be on target, and the return mail will be too.
Ever stop to think of your immediate family being burned to death, dying slowly from radiation, or later cancer?
Consider it. Is it worth it?
Of course it is - because it's exactly the fear of that that has successfully prevented it happening.
Consider it. Is it worth it?
We wouldn't of had 70 years of peace without them.
Well it is a fact that 'little England' does have global power and influence and we do alot of good in the world with that power and influence. If we get rid of nukes then we will have less influence and that would be bad, not just for us but for some of the good we do actually do in the world.
There are absolutely no benefits of giving up our nukes unilaterally. If we were to give them up lets at least leverage them to get something in return. Anybody who thinks that any other nation around the world will somehow mark our gesture of getting rid of nukes as some shining beacon in the world and tweak their own consciences and force them to act any differently is just a fantasy. Some warm fuzzy feeling of moral superiority is of no use to anyone.
With China, ****stan, India and other nations with nuclear ambitions and actively seeking them this is the worst time for us to simply withdraw from the Global defence scene. Trident is cheap - the cost of the entire programme through its whole life is not much more than the NHS budget for one year and even if there is a sniff of a chance that it is an effective deterrent then it is worth it a hundred times over in my view.
No.
Perhaps Labour under Corbyn will make it a manifesto commitment for 2020 to have a Referendum to cancel it
5thElefant - Member
We wouldn't of had 70 years of peace without them.
I'm trying to think who would have contemplated invading us in that period if we didn't have them.
The only people who benefit from them live in the USA.
I'm trying to think who would have contemplated invading us in that period if we didn't have them.
Granted, we could rely on the French and the Americans but freeloading is hardly the moral high ground.
The west unilaterally disarming would have ended badly.
5thElefant - Member
Granted, we could rely on the French and the Americans but freeloading is hardly the moral high ground.
OK without them, who would have invaded us?
We wouldn't of had 70 years of peace without them.
Name of War ? ? Years ? ? Fatalities Type Mem.
Eastern Ukraine War 2014 - 2015 4,398 1 [1] U
South Sudan Civil War 2011 - 2015 4,416 1 U
Syrian civil war 2011 - 2015 129,546 1 [2] U
Libyan Civil War 2011 - 2015 3,617 1 [3] U
Yemeni Civil War 2009 - 2015 5,981 1 U
Nigerian Govt vs Boko Haram 2009 - 2015 13,601 1 U
Waziristan conflict 2007 - 2015 28,542 1 U
Mexican Drug War 2006 - 2015 11,465 2 [3] U
Iraqi Insurgency 2004 - 2015 46,834 1 [8] U
Afghanistan war 2001 - 2015 72,593 1 [5] U
Turkey Gov vs Kurdistan Guerilla (PPK) 1984 - 2015 28,651 1 [1] U
Sudan Government vs Militias 1983 - 2015 97,221 1 [1] U
Somalia Civil War 1982 - 2015 51,701 1 [2] U
Russia vs Chechnyan Secessionists and the Caucasus Emirate 1994 - 2014 23,389 1 [7] U
Algeria Govt vs Islamic rebels, GIA, AIS, AQIM 1991 - 2014 20,658 1 [1] U
Indian Govt vs Maoist Guerillas 1991 - 2014 7,198 1 U
Nagorno-Karabakh War 1990 - 2014 5,294 1 [1] U
Northern Mali Conflict 1990 - 2014 2,784 1 U
India vs ****stan, Kashmir Dispute 1984 - 2014 21,929 1 [12] U
Ethiopian Govt vs Ogadeni Rebels - WSLF/ONLF/AIAI 1976 - 2014 23,382 1 U
Philippines Govt vs Mindanao Guerillas 1970 - 2014 17,692 1 U
Philippine Government vs CPP Guerrilla 1969 - 2014 24,804 1 U
Colombia Govt vs Guerillas Farc and ELN 1964 - 2014 26,877 1 [3] U
Burmese Government vs Separatist Guerillas 1949 - 2014 53,707 1 U
Israel vs Palestine 1949 - 2014 15,216 1 [6]
Sectarian Conflict in the Central African Republic 2012 - 2013 5,735 1 U
Kivu Conflict 2006 - 2013 10,449 1 U
Lou Nuer vs Murle (Jonglei conflict) 2006 - 2013 3,362 2 U
al-Qaida vs USA and allies 2001 - 2013 7,649 1 [12]
Uganda Civil War 1980 - 2013 127,566 1 [1] U
Mozambique Govt vs RENAMO and FRELIMO 1977 - 2013 115,888 1 U
Ethiopia vs Oromia rebels (OLF) 1977 - 2013 2,651 1 [1] U
Tajikistan Govt vs Opposition 1992 - 2011 9,145 1
Senegal Civil War 1990 - 2011 1,657 1
Iran vs rebel groups (MEK,PJAK etc) 1979 - 2011 5,015 1 U
Chad Civil War 1966 - 2010 36,078 1 U
Peruvian Gvt vs Sendero Luminoso and MRTA 1965 - 2010 17,250 1 [1]
Sri Lankan Govt vs Tamil Militants (LTTE) 1984 - 2009 73,818 1 [8] U
Burundi Civil War 1991 - 2008 15,651 1 [2] U
Nepal Civil War 1996 - 2006 12,282 1 [1] U
Southern Lebanon War 1990 - 2006 1,712 1 [3]
Indonesia Gvt vs Aceh Liberation movement 1990 - 2005 3,184 1 U
Civil War in Côte d Ivoire 2002 - 2004 1,371 1 [1] U
Ituri Conflict 1999 - 2004 12,494 2 U
Iraq vs US led coalition 2003 - 2003 7,927 1 [10] U
First and Second Congo Wars 1996 - 2003 80,018 1 [1] U
Liberia Civil War 1989 - 2003 23,249 1 [2] U
Congo Brazzaville Civil War 1993 - 2002 15,541 1 [1]
Angolan Gvt vs UNITA Guerilla 1975 - 2002 114,898 1 [1]
Sierra Leone Civil War 1991 - 2001 18,119 1 [2]
Eritrea vs Ethiopia 2000 - 2000 98,192 1 [1]
Afghanistan Civil War 1978 - 2000 546,703 1 [4] U
Yugoslavia vs NATO Forces and UCK Guerilla 1998 - 1999 3,613 1 [5]
Indonesian Govt vs Fretilin - East Timor 1975 - 1999 76,623 1 [1] U
Cambodian Govt vs Khmer Rouge 1979 - 1998 87,499 1 U
Northern Ireland, The Troubles 1971 - 1998 3,010 1 [4]
Hunde and allies vs Hutu, Banyarwanda 1993 - 1996 3,938 2 U
Iraq vs Kurdistan (KDP/PUK) 1982 - 1996 20,849 1 [1] U
Iraq Government vs SCIRI 1982 - 1996 1,165 1
Iranian Govt vs KDPI 1966 - 1996 2,618 1 U
Bosnian Govt vs Serbian and Croatian Insurgents 1992 - 1995 29,103 1 [7]
Croatia vs Serbian Irregulars, Rep. Krajina 1992 - 1995 1,442 1 [3]
Guatemalan Civil War 1965 - 1995 45,392 1 [2]
North Yemen vs Secessionists 1994 - 1994 1,489 1
Rwanda Civil War (Hutus vs Tutsis) 1990 - 1994 507,754 1 [3] U
Burmese Govt vs Communist Guerillas 1948 - 1994 17,700 1
Georgian Civil War 1992 - 1993 2,752 1
Indian Govt vs Sikh insurgents 1983 - 1993 14,551 1 [2] U
Serbian Govt. vs Croatian irregulars 1991 - 1991 3,933 1
First Gulf War 1990 - 1991 23,946 1 [4] U
El Salvador Gvt vs FMLN Guerrillas 1979 - 1991 51,809 1 [2] U
Ethiopian Government vs EPRDF 1976 - 1991 56,003 1 U
Ethiopia vs Eritrean Separatists ELF/EPLF 1964 - 1991 168,510 1
Nicaragua Govt vs Contras 1981 - 1990 29,965 1 [1] U
Lebanese Civil War 1975 - 1990 131,104 1 [7]
Sri Lanka Govt vs JVP 1971 - 1990 2,018 1 [1]
Romanian Revolution 1989 - 1989 909 1
Panama Coup and US Invasion 1989 - 1989 920 1
Western Sahara War 1975 - 1989 12,687 1 [1]
South Africa vs ANC 1981 - 1988 4,087 1
Iran vs Iraq 1980 - 1988 644,500 1 [4]
Sino-Vietnamese War 1978 - 1988 47,046 1
Namibia vs South Africa 1966 - 1988 10,000 1 [5]
Chadian-Lybian War (Aouzou Strip) 1987 - 1987 8,500 1
South Yemen Coup 1986 - 1986 10,000 1
Falklands War 1982 - 1982 964 1 [5]
Syrian Govt vs Muslim Brotherhood 1979 - 1982 2,075 1
Thai Govt vs CPT 1974 - 1982 3,425 1
Nicaraguan Gvt vs Sandinistas 1978 - 1979 10,000 1 [1]
Iranian Revolution 1978 - 1979 1,100 1
Uganda vs Tanzania 1978 - 1979 3,847 1
Rhodesian Government vs ZANU,ZAPU,PF 1967 - 1979 27,080 1 [3]
Vietnam vs Cambodia (Kampuchea) 1978 - 1978 32,500 1
Indonesian annexation of West Papua 1962 - 1978 8,700 1
Argentina: Civil War and Dirty War 1974 - 1977 4,677 1 [2]
Balochistan Insurgency 1974 - 1977 8,600 1
Chinese Cultural Revolution 1967 - 1976 2,050,000 1 [1]
Cambodian Civil War 1967 - 1975 250,000 1
Vietnam War 1965 - 1975 2,048,050 1 [7]
Angolan War of Independence 1961 - 1975 79,000 1 [1]
Turko Cypriot War 1974 - 1974 5,000 1
Mozambique War of Independence 1964 - 1974 13,500 1 [2]
Yom Kippur War 1973 - 1973 6,450 1 [1]
Chilean MIlitary Coup 1973 - 1973 2,095 1 [2]
Guinea Bissau War of Independence 1963 - 1973 15,000 1 [1]
Laos Civil War 1959 - 1973 21,500 1
Hutu Rebellion 1972 - 1972 153,000 1
Sudan Government vs Insurgents 1963 - 1972 10,000 1
Bangladesh War 1971 - 1971 50,000 1 [4]
Second Kashmir War 1964 - 1971 16,327 1 [2]
Israel vs Egypt 1969 - 1970 5,520 1
Nigerian Civil War 1967 - 1970 75,000 1 [2]
North Yemen Civil War 1962 - 1970 10,000 1
First Kurdish–Iraqi War 1961 - 1970 6,600 1
Football War Honduras vs El Salvador 1969 - 1969 2,107 1
The Six Day War 1967 - 1967 5,413 1 [1]
Dominican Republic Coup 1965 - 1965 4,027 1
Congo Crisis 1960 - 1965 7,175 1 [2]
First Rwanda Civil War 1963 - 1964 1,000 1
Vietnam Civil War 1955 - 1964 164,923 1
Sino-Indian War 1962 - 1962 2,105 1 [2]
Algerian War of Independece 1954 - 1962 184,886 1 [2]
Bizerte Crisis 1961 - 1961 1,394 1
Cameroonian Govt vs UPC 1960 - 1961 60,000 1
Indonesia vs PRRI, Permesta and Darul Islam 1953 - 1961 33,965 1
Cuban Revolution 1953 - 1961 1,205 1
1959 Mosul uprising in Iraq 1959 - 1959 2,000 1 [1]
Cameroon War of Independence 1957 - 1959 11,700 1
Tibetan Uprising 1956 - 1959 16,000 1
First Lebanese War 1958 - 1958 1,400 1
La Violencia 1948 - 1958 29,800 1
Malayan Civil War 1948 - 1957 10,845 1 [2]
Sinai War 1956 - 1956 2,142 1 [2]
Soviet Invasion of Hungary 1956 - 1956 3,171 1 [2]
Kenya, Mau-Mau vs UK 1954 - 1956 12,955 1 [3]
Tunisian war of Independence 1953 - 1956 2,000 1
Moroccan War of Independence 1953 - 1956 1,000 1
Taiwan Strait Crisis 1949 - 1954 10,025 1
Philippines, Huk rebels vs Govt 1946 - 1954 9,695 1
First Indochina War Comm. vs France 1946 - 1954 377,523 1 [2]
Korean War 1949 - 1953 995,025 1 [11]
Bolivian Revolution 1952 - 1952 1,000 1
Indian Govt vs Communist Rebels CPI 1948 - 1951 4,000 1
Soviet Union vs Baltic Partisans (’’Forest Brethren’’) 1945 - 1951 32,400 1
Indonesian Govt vs Republic of South Moluccas 1950 - 1950 1,000 1
Third Sino-Tibetan War 1950 - 1950 4,000 1
Cheju Rebellion in South Korea 1948 - 1949 17,000 1 [1]
Arab-Israeli War 1948 - 1949 21,111 1 [1]
Greece Civil War 1946 - 1949 154,000 1
Chinese Civil War 1946 - 1949 1,200,000 1 [1]
Costa Rican Civil War 1948 - 1948 2,000 1
First Kashmir War 1948 - 1948 7,500 1
Yemeni Imamate War 1948 - 1948 4,000 1
Indian Partition Communal Violence 1947 - 1948 200,000 1
Telangana Rebellion and Indo-Hyderabad War 1947 - 1948 4,360 1
Civil War in Mandatory Palestine 1947 - 1948 4,009 1 [2]
Taiwanese revolt 1947 - 1947 1,000 1 [1]
Paraguayan Gvt vs Rebels 1947 - 1947 4,000 1
Madagascar Rebellion 1947 - 1947 6,952 1 [1]
Poland and Soviet Union vs Ukrainian Partisans 1945 - 1947 59,700 1
Indonesian Independence 1945 - 1946 5,400 1
World War II 1939 - 1945 50,000,000 1 [36]
they sure do!
If we get rid of nukes then we will have less influence and that would be bad, not just for us but for some of the good we do actually do in the world.
WHilst I am struggling to think of the good we do for the world perhaps you could list them and then explain how without nukes we could not have done it. The list seems to be non existent to me.
With China, ****stan, India and other nations with nuclear ambitions and actively seeking them this is the worst time for us to simply withdraw from the Global defence scene
they have had nukes china since the 50's india since the 70's and ****stan since the 80's.
Of course it is - because it's exactly the fear of that that has successfully prevented it happening.
there is no proof of this, It's generally accepted that there at the very least a correlation vs causality gap in the belief that Nuclear weapons have "kept the peace". We have had almost no peace at all in the world since the advent of the "deterrent" that the Trident fan-club bang on about, as the list above demonstrates.
I don't like the idea of spending a £zillion on nukes when we need the money now more than ever because we'll have no more EU donations to prop us up but....
With or without a nuclear deterrent from any country there will never, ever be 'peace' on this planet, ever. Someone somewhere is always going to be scrapping with someone else, as they always have been since time immaterial.
But I do think a big stick stops things going beyond a joke.
Can you imagine if Kim Jong Wotshisname was the only person in the world to have the power of nuclear weapons to hand?
I think nuclear weapons have prevented us from having another world war.
Clearly, they have no impact in the smaller wars other than to stop the other superpowers getting directly involved. E.g. Russia or China getting involved in Iraq would have led to a more significant conflict.
No offence but utter bollocks.
Its never been less likely.
No offence taken; I think you spout utter bollocks half the time too 😉
Russia or China getting involved in Iraq would have led to a more significant conflict.
It would have been harder for us to have ****ed up Iraq any more than we have already, with or without Russia or China's involvement. In fact we in the west seem oblivious to their "deterrent" of nuclear arsenal, as we start wars at will.
Like @ninfan I think the Swiss system has a lot of positives it has however lead to some difficulties such as the decision to prevent the building of minaretes (currently only 4 mosques in Switzerland I believe). Some things it has delieverd clarity on such as vote to end freedom of movement (government currently struggling with this) and rejection of a citizens income.
As I said Labour are free to campaign in 2020 on a Trident/nuke Referendum pledge.