In favor or renewing Trident?

[alchemist]

I'm not saying that - I was answering the general question of nuclear deterrent, it was during the cold war. At the start of cold war we were a world power and the main threat was Russia and eastern Europe. It was valid then ? Totally. I'd like to see a cheaper nuclear alternative now as the threat isn't the same. From what I've read trident has 4 subs which will carry 8 missiles and 40 warheads. Do we need that much ? Should we look at a different delivery system than expensive submarines ?

 

I would still question the need for the UK to have had an independant detterant during the cold war, but thats gone. Now the major threat is purely conventional (if you can call terrorism that) and so the money spent on nukes would be far better spent on conventional forces. After all taking 7/7 as an example. Who would we have nuked in retaliation? Also 9/11, america, with their prediliction of shoot first ask questions later didnt actually nuke anyone

[Phanerothyme]

So it's ok for Rouge States to build and fire off nuclear missiles as long as they don't hit us

 

It's the blusher states and the eyeliner states that you need to worry about.

[Manlinose]

I think that a near 70 year gap between nuclear bombs shows it does work as a deterrent . Do you think that America and Russia wouldn't have attacked each other if neither had nuclear weapons during the cold war ?

 

i'm not talking about American and Russian nuclear weapons, I'm talking about ours, if you'd cared to read my earlier post

 

do you think anyone would have attacked us if we hadn't got nuclear weapons?

[Hots on]

do you think anyone would have attacked us if we hadn't got nuclear weapons?

 

The Nazi's attacked us and attempted to invade us when we didn't have nuclear weapons.

[tinfoilhat]

i'm not talking about American and Russian nuclear weapons, I'm talking about ours, if you'd cared to read my earlier post

 

do you think anyone would have attacked us if we hadn't got nuclear weapons?

 

During the cold war possibly, but not now - but the question asked (by someone anyway) were nuclear weapons a deterrent (not specifically britain) overall yes they are. There hasn't been a major conflict between world powers since world war 2. I'm not saying nukes have been the sole reason by any stretch of the imagination but it hasn't done any harm.

 

I think the current set up is largly pointless, having read a bit more about it. I think we should have a nuclear deterrent but perhaps not one as big as it is or is being put forward. A fully operation aircraft carrier (with planes and everything !!) would be more use - and more likely to create/protect British jobs.

[alchemist]

The Nazi's attacked us and attempted to invade us when we didn't have nuclear weapons.

 

And the Normans and Romans succeeded. And your point is..???

[Onlywayis S6]

But there's no way North Korea could reach us with a missile.

 

Yet.

 

(message to short)

[MrSmith]

Really?? So if we scrapped them all tomorrow, we would all be dead by Wednesday?

 

No one can know what the future consequences would be, if we scraped the nuclear deterrent.

[alchemist]

Yet.

 

(message to short)

 

And if they could? Why would they think we are a better target than all the others on the way?

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 19:11 ----------

 

No one can know what the future consequences would be, if we scraped the nuclear deterrent.

 

or, equally, what would happen if the money was used more sensibly

[MrSmith]

or, equally, what would happen if the money was used more sensibly

 

As you can't know what the future holds, you can't know that the money could be spent more sensibly.