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:

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
Falklands

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

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America 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?

so you now accept that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent

Who said we were going to use nuclear weapons?
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 exactly 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 ?