The Trident debate.

[Bonzo77]

Have you noticed how politicians, specifically those with ties to the defence sector, usually end up working for the companies that benefit from the manufacturer of weapons?

 

Anyone would think they've been given some sort of golden hand shake?!

[Nagel]

MP's are debating the renewal/modernisation of Britain's nuclear weapons. I've been watching some of it on the parliament channel through the day.

 

The barmy SNP, the Greens and the Libdems are with CND and want them done away with completely.

 

In an increasingly dangerous world in which there is no way of knowing what the future threats will be, and with the Russians modernising their nuclear capability, where is the sense in Britain, a NATO country, doing away with ours?

 

What planet are CND, SNP, the Greens and some in Libdems living on/ or who are they working for??

 

Of course we can possess nuclear weapons. We know how to make them and have companies who we can pay to deliver them to our military.

 

But when could we ever use them and against who?

[alchemist]

MP's are debating the renewal/modernisation of Britain's nuclear weapons. I've been watching some of it on the parliament channel through the day.

 

The barmy SNP, the Greens and the Libdems are with CND and want them done away with completely.

 

In an increasingly dangerous world in which there is no way of knowing what the future threats will be, and with the Russians modernising their nuclear capability, where is the sense in Britain, a NATO country, doing away with ours?

 

What planet are CND, SNP, the Greens and some in Libdems living on/ or who are they working for??

 

So having nukes will stop IS, the Paris attacks, the Belgium attacks, Russias invasion of the Ukraine .... the list is endless

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:47 ----------

 

Do you not hold much faith in the deterrent effect then?

 

Deterrant effect? Has that actually been proven?

[Cyclone]

We haven't been nuked or invaded with conventional forces.

 

That's about as conclusive proof as you can get regarding a deterrent really.

[anfisa]

 

Deterrant effect? Has that actually been proven?

 

To date it does appear to have worked, obviously they can not work against religious nutters because they do not fear mutual destruction, they would welcome it.

[Cyclone]

Trident is a white elephant that we will never use and will never be a deterrent against the sort of death cult religious loons that think death will send them to heaven.

 

It's a deterrent against normal, mainstream and sensible people but the threat at this time isn't from those types. The money wasted on replacing Trident should be used on intelligence against religious fanatics.

 

Mutually assured destruction only worked (if it ever did) because neither side wanted to die. When you have extremists who glory in death and martyrdom then it becomes a costly and useless distraction. Non proliferation and De-commissioning should be first and foremost. The less nuclear capability in the world, the less chance the nutters will get hold of it.

 

You're not at all concerned about the continued expansionism of Soviet Russia?

 

Or the possible military intentions of the Chinese, as they invest billions to bring their military technology up to the same level as the West?

 

I agree that there are other threats, but I don't think the conventional ones have gone away.

[alchemist]

This is not a reason for not insuring against a major attack from a hostile state. Its a separate matter.

 

But ARE the two bogeymen mentioned, Russia and China, likely to suddnely take it upon themselves to launch nukes halfway round the world just to take out the UK? And why on earth would they WANT to?? What the heck do we have anymore thats worth nuking us for?

 

There are FAR more affluent countries in terms of natural resouces worth invading before you get to UK on the list

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:59 ----------

 

We haven't been nuked or invaded with conventional forces.

 

That's about as conclusive proof as you can get regarding a deterrent really.

 

I havent had my garden trampled by elephants, my anti-elephant shed is obviously working well

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 09:01 ----------

 

To date it does appear to have worked, obviously they can not work against religious nutters because they do not fear mutual destruction, they would welcome it.

 

But there is NO proof that it was the possesion of nukes that has prevented our invasion or nuclear obliteration

[apelike]

We haven't been nuked or invaded with conventional forces.

 

That's about as conclusive proof as you can get regarding a deterrent really.

 

But richer countries with raw assets that dont have Nukes have also not been invaded, so no actually conclusive proof. Also, how many Nukes do we need to make them a deterrent?

Edited January 21, 2015 by apelike

[Guest]

So having nukes will stop IS, the Paris attacks, the Belgium attacks, Russias invasion of the Ukraine .... the list is endless

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:47 ----------

 

 

You can't be serious with this comment.

 

Deterrant effect? Has that actually been proven?

 

Has there been a world war three?

[Cyclone]

 

But richer countries with raw assets that dont have Nukes have also not been invaded, so no actually conclusive proof. Also, how many Nukes do we need to make them a deterrent?

 

There can't be a conclusive proof, it's simply impossible.

 

Richer countries for example? Would they perhaps be treaty members to groups that do have nukes?

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 14:28 ----------

 

But ARE the two bogeymen mentioned, Russia and China, likely to suddnely take it upon themselves to launch nukes halfway round the world just to take out the UK? And why on earth would they WANT to?? What the heck do we have anymore thats worth nuking us for?

 

There are FAR more affluent countries in terms of natural resouces worth invading before you get to UK on the list

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:59 ----------

 

 

I havent had my garden trampled by elephants, my anti-elephant shed is obviously working well

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

But there is NO proof that it was the possesion of nukes that has prevented our invasion or nuclear obliteration

 

So on the basis that we can't prove something, you'd like to discard it and hope for the best?

 

Feel free to discard your elephant deterrent. Firstly, it doesn't affect my garden, secondly, there doesn't seem to be any logical basis for a fear of elephant trampling, nor is there any logical basis for thinking your deterrent might work.

The same is not true of nuclear attack, there has been, and could well be a reasonable fear of it (perhaps there should even be such a fear given the recent behaviour of Russia). And there is reason to believe that MAD is a deterrent to a first strike.

It's all just logic and conjecture, but when the alternative is just hope and relying on the good intentions of a megalomaniac ruling another country, I'd rather go with the logic, thanks.