Should the UK have an independent nuclear deterent?, £20 billion to replace the ageing Trident Options

[Humpty Dumpty]

The cost of replacing Trident is estimated to be £20 billion.

There is current posturing by the Ministry of Defence regarding whose budget will be used. The Chancellor is insistent it will be Defence and not the Treasury.

The Conservative part of the Coalition is committed to to the replacement of the independent nuclear capablity, the Liberal are for scrapping it.

Should the UK have a nuclear weapon capacity or should it save the money?

[mikes]

No, what's the point?

There isn't any real justification for it.

[stulancs]

Yes we should.

We punch well above our weight in foreign affairs and presumably that benefits the country somehow (economically etc), and hangs on our status as a military power, which in turn has a large debt to the threat of our nuclear weapons.

They should cut elsewhere before cutting that, and there is a great deal that can be cut from expenditure without really affecting anyone.

[darker_phoenix]

Yes, of course.

[Roger Mellie]

After the drawn-out devastation and horrors of WWII, I imagine people in the late 1940s wouldn't have foreseen that the coming decades would see the planet teetering on the brink of WWIII via the Cold War. So there maybe not an obvious threat at present (to justify Trident), but there may be in the future-- who knows? North Korea is a consideration for instance, possibly Iran too.

The cost of cleaning up after a nuclear strike would be unimaginablev(watch Threads for more details!). We can't uninvent nuclear weapons, so I think we do need the ultimate deterrent, nobody wins a nuclear war. I believe the reason the Cold War never did turn 'hot', was because of the spectre of MAD; the two nuclear-armed armed sides realised that a nuclear exchange would amount to nothing more than a futile and horrific stalemate.

Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles have been touted; but as I understand it they are too slow, don't have the range and can be shot down easily?

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Aug 23 2010, 18:34

[CyanIsland]

Should the UK have an independent nuclear deterent?

Yes.

[Stevie P]

I'd love us to get rid of the lot of them, but I can see why people want us to keep them, but I definitely think they could get rid of one of them. It's a step towards getting rid of them, without leaving us totally vulnerable. I know some people say we need all of them for full coverage when one is being serviced, but can't we just keep it secret where the ones we have got are and people will presume we could get them back if need be?

It's amazing how adamant some are we need to save money, but won't consider cutting something like this.

[Roger Mellie]

I'd love us to get rid of the lot of them, but I can see why people want us to keep them, but I definitely think they could get rid of one of them. It's a step towards getting rid of them, without leaving us totally vulnerable. I know some people say we need all of them for full coverage when one is being serviced, but can't we just keep it secret where the ones we have got are and people will presume we could get them back if need be?

It's amazing how adamant some are we need to save money, but won't consider cutting something like this.

I can see your point-- and put in the context of other public spending projects it seems an easy cut-- but can you put a price on ulitmate national security? Or to take the argument to an extreme conclusion, how much would it cost to clear after just one nuclear attack on the UK?

To me, the latter only justifies the cost of the deterrent alone. It's unlikely that such an attack happen now, but (rightly or wrongly) the UK has played a prominent military role in some the world's most volatile areas in recent years-- that won't be forgotten. Plus Russia has been becoming slightly hostile in recent years, then we have the possible threat of Iran or of course North Korea. Also the UK has oil and gas fields, and is the world's third biggest trading nation-- all of which make us a strategic target for a nuclear attack on the West.

I think Trident is a bit like house-insurance: A costly outgoing that you may never need, but well worth it should the need arise. I think the main reason there hasn't been a WWIII is because of nuclear weapons, "nobody wins a nuclear war" as Barry Hines once said. Indeed we know that the Soviets were all ready to invade western Europe, and they were banking on NATO countries to denounce them.

As far as I gather there isn't an practical alternative to Trident, as far as a deterrent goes? I know that cruise missiles have been touted; but reportedly they can be shot down eaily, are too slow and have limited range? Maybe I've been misled by politicans/media, but it appears to be Hobson's choice regarding Trident. Given the way MOD budgets have been slashed in the past 20 years, there must be a very good reason why politicans on red and blue colour have mainted the system, when they could've easily got rid.

I agree in an ideal world there wouldn't be any nuclear weapons, but they have been invented and the knowledge to build them 'is out there'. All it would take is some despotic ruler to build some, we'll be in trouble without any deterrent. North Korea has shown signs of this recently, threatening South Korea with nukes. I firmly believe the only reason the Dear Leader has not carried out this threat (or just invaded SK), is because the nuclear-armed nations of NATO supporting SK and responding to NK in kind.

Let's not forget Tony Blair was a committed CND activist in his youth. He had the political clout in (his first term of) office, to scrap Trident-- yet he didn't. Also some would argue nuclear weapons are the only way to deflect large space debris as well!

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Aug 29 2010, 19:19

[dan999uk]

I'm uncomfortable with a weapon with the capability of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians completely indiscriminately, and reducing civilisation to the level of the stone age.

By all means, invest strongly in conventional weapons. But a nuclear "deterrent" - no.

[Roger Mellie]

I'm uncomfortable with a weapon with the capability of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians completely indiscriminately, and reducing civilisation to the level of the stone age.

Well I'd rather nuclear weapons didn't exist at all, for the very reasons you rightly mention. However they have been invented, and they won't go away. Responsible countries could rid of nuclear weapons tomorrow, but what would we have to protect us from countries who are not 'responsible' (the situation you describe above could easily afflict the UK)? They wouldn't be deterred by conventional weapons (which are perfectly capable of killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately, just on a lesser scale)-- but they would be by a nuclear threat. Prevention is better than 'cure' I'd say.

Thus for the reasons you give, it acts a deterrent in return (I'd say deterrent is a reasonable word to use, they've not actually been used since end of WWII). The fact they could used, means they won't be used-- that's the idea the anti-brigade can't seem to grasp. You dismiss that concept, but the fact we're having this conversation proves it. For over over 40 years, World Three was potentially five-minutes away, yet it hasn't happened.

I firmly believe the reason the Cold War never turned hot, is because the horrifying notion you evoke was bi-lateral. And horrifying as the notion is, it was (and is) the ultimate deterrent-- nobody wins a nuclear exchange. WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Nov 5 2011, 18:46

[veeeight]

Does anyone seriosly think the Cold War is over?

Russian submarines are hunting down British Vanguard boats in a return to Cold War tactics not seen for 25 years.

"The Russians have been playing games with us, the Americans and French in the North Atlantic," a senior Navy commander said.

A specially upgraded Russian Akula class submarine has been caught trying to record the acoustic signature made by the Vanguard submarines that carry Trident nuclear missiles, according to senior Navy officers.

British submariners have also reported that they are experiencing the highest number of "contacts" with Russian submarines since 1987.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...f-Cold-War.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11016184

[KernowKid]

Yes,

Whilst regimes such as Iran seek the capability to develop Nuclear weapon making materials we should continue to hold and develop updated weaponry.

[Roger Mellie]

@veeeight

When they are not poisoning spies on our soil, sabre-rattling in Georgia or threating to cut off gas-supplies, the Russians find time to give the MOD cause for concern. Earlier this year RAF jets have had to scrambled over the North Sea, because Russian fighter pilots were unexpectedly flying around in British airspace.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle7074891.ece

I think the argument for deterrence is best summed up by Sir Humphrey Appleton in Yes (Prime) Minister...

Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."

[duxk]

can't we just pretend we've still got one? Would one of these mythical country's threatening us take the risk?

[Roger Mellie]

can't we just pretend we've still got one? Would one of these mythical countries threatening us take the risk?

The latter question is myopic. Just because there's no country threatening us at the moment (as far as we know), doesn't mean to say there won't be in the future. And we won't have any deterent or defence, if the currently 'mythical' becomes reality. It's like insuring your house: Your house may not be in imminent danger, but who knows what happens in the future?

What a shame Sir Humphrey is not around to ask He had an answer for everything

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jul 14 2012, 17:53

[smalltown]

As far as I gather there isn't an practical alternative to Trident, as far as a deterrent goes? I know that cruise missiles have been touted; but reportedly they can be shot down eaily, are too slow and have limited range?

The reason cruise missiles are not a viable alternative comes down to how they fly. Cruise missiles are launched and then power like a rocket all the way to their target. That makes them easy to see (from a infra-red perspective) and so they can (possibly) be intercepted and shot down.

The normal missiles they use are ballistic missiles. These are more like bullets in that they are launched and then continue under momentum and gravity to their target (essentially they are launched like rockets but after the launch they reach the top of their arc and then they freefall). As a small freefalling (and fast moving) object they are hard to track well enough (no IR target value and small radar profile) to intercept.

The reason these are used is for the guarantee of first strike. The principle of mutually assured destruction is that you mustn't be able to be certain that you couldn't defend yourself from a first strike and you mustn't be certain that the enemy couldn't retaliate with a devastating "second strike". Second strike is why it realistically has to be submarines. You could stand a chance of blowing up the silos on land but not if you don't know where they are.



Personally I think we should get rid of Trident because we can't afford it. The US have enough to protect us and themselves (and by extension everyone else) with. If that's the argument, we don't need to add to the matter. The UK attempts to punch well above our weight in international matters because we seem to have some self-ordained reason of importance which is realistically no longer the case. We need to protect ourselves in the way that the future and our quality of life will actually depend upon; the economy.

[Humpty Dumpty]

can't we just pretend we've still got one? Would one of these mythical country's threatening us take the risk?

I had been thinking of a similar thing, which was influence by the film The Man Who Never Was (1956) based on a true story of providing mis-information to the German's during the war.

[CyanIsland]

Personally I think we should get rid of Trident because we can't afford it.

We can afford it, but we will have to make cuts elsewhere.

The US have enough to protect us and themselves (and by extension everyone else) with.

Now this doesn't make sense at all. You think we should rely on another country with its own interests and agenda to protect us?! Why should they?

The UK attempts to punch well above our weight in international matters because we seem to have some self-ordained reason of importance which is realistically no longer the case.

We don't punch above our weight at all. We really do have a lot of say in political and economic matters, and so on. We are, afterall, the sixth largest economy in the world and the third largest in Europe after Germany and France.

[smalltown]

Personally I think we should get rid of Trident because we can't afford it.

We can afford it, but we will have to make cuts elsewhere.

The US have enough to protect us and themselves (and by extension everyone else) with.

Now this doesn't make sense at all. You think we should rely on another country with its own interests and agenda to protect us?! Why should they?

The UK attempts to punch well above our weight in international matters because we seem to have some self-ordained reason of importance which is realistically no longer the case.

We don't punch above our weight at all. We really do have a lot of say in political and economic matters, and so on. We are, afterall, the sixth largest economy in the world and the third largest in Europe after Germany and France.

Ok granted we could afford it if we really wanted to. My point is we don't have the money to throw around and frankly when there are things we could be spending the money on like transport or universities that have tangible and measurable economic benefits (further than the direct spend itself), I don't think we should be blowing money on something we plan to never use of questionable value.

My point is that we are protected by default of the US's position. The only protection we have is that any person who launches a nuclear attack will themselves be destroyed. What makes us any better (or any more of a target) than Germany or Canada or any of the others who assume no direct responsibility for nuclear deterrence themselves? Yes, someone could nuke us and maybe the US wouldn't retaliate but firstly, we wouldn't care (what with being nuked) and secondly, the attacker can't know that and thus they would be fools to do so. If they are truly that nuts, then having a deterrent wouldn't stop them.

6th largest economy but with the 3rd largest military spend (2nd until a couple of yrs ago when China overtook on military spend) and 22nd largest population and it's only going further out of our favour. We should accept that we are going to have less say in global maters in the future and cement our position now through strong relationships such as the EU and NATO.

This post has been edited by smalltown: Aug 30 2010, 19:11

[duxk]

can't we just pretend we've still got one? Would one of these mythical countries threatening us take the risk?

They may not be mythical in the future... what a shame Sir Humphrey is not around to ask He had an answer for everything

Sir Humphrey wasn't the only one with an opinon: