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

[Roger Mellie]

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.

They are better ways of saving money: Cutting down on bureaucratic waste. Stop giving aid to countries which have their own space programmes. Withdraw from the EU. Reduce the number of MPs, and the size of size government full-stop. Have a flat-tax, and close tax-loopholes. Stop propping up failing bank(er)s with public money.

To say a nuclear deterrent is of "questionable value"? Well consider the cost of clearing up after a nuclear strike or the country being invaded, it's beyond money. Trident's mere presence, its use; you can't rely on the USA, to defend Britain (where were they when the Falklands were invaded?). To say Trident is of questionable value and use, is like arguing against insuring one's house on the same basis; it's unlikely you'll need it, but you'll glad that you have, if you do.

I think nuclear weapons are an awkward but sensible part of defence strategy. Despite the occasional concerns surrounding terrorism (which is an over-stated threat I feel), past experience shows that from time to time Britain truly will be threatened by major foreign powers. Would Hitler (for argument's sake) have tried to invade if we had had nuclear weapons? Probably not. We are still the third largest trading country in the world, we have gas/oil, and have been involved in military campagins in volatile areas-- so the UK a prime target for those wishing ill against the West. Given the rest of our military hardware has largely been sold-off/discontinued, we need some defence.

Then again we have NATO (in this arena it renders the EU superfluous; perhaps even unhelpful, given the wars cause by creations of European superstates in the past!): The underlying principle of which is that if you attack one NATO country, you attack all of them. So the USA would obliged to help us if the UK (or another NATO member) was attacked.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, there is relatively little threat to our security at present-- but what of the future? The problem is that threats arise far far quicker than we can develop much of a change in armament levels (would we have won the Falklands, if those ships had been scrapped as palnned?) We simply would not be able to recreate a significant military force from scratch in a short period. To say "who would we point them at", is typical of the myopic thinking that has marred British politics so much since WWII, the Beeching Cuts a salient example. In the early 1960s, many had grave concerns about ripping up two thirds of our rail network; Beeching and cronies scoffed at them, declaring that railways were losing money, everyone was buying cars and motorways were the future. Almost 50 years on those motorways are congested, rail-travel is ever-popular, trains are overcrowded and we are talking about a high-speed network that we should've planned half a century ago. The lesson? Long term-planning, requires long-term thinking.

So on the question of reaction to UK nuclear disarmament: Given mass cuts in MOD-spending (this alone has paid for the renewal of Trident) the UK is not so significant in the world, that if we were to scrap our nuclear weapons, it is unlikely to affect other countries. The attention of others is turned to those with lots of nukes (USA and Russia) and those most likely to use them (N Korea, Israel, maybe Iran soon). Out of all nuclear powers, the UK is probably the least of a threat to anyone.

After all, no-one batted an eyelid when South Africa disarmed-- no-one really thought they were a threat. Nuclear weapons could not be the only part of our defence-- but I think they are cost-effective way to deter mass war by foreign nations-- especially when you consider any cost of clearling up after just one nuclear attack on the UK. I do however accept we could probably trim the cost significantly by moving to an air-based or cruise missile-based system (both of which would be much less effective but still a deterrent) for a lower cost.

@dukx

I love that Youtube clip

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Nov 5 2011, 18:58

[duxk]

You'll like this one too then I hope



and apologies for hijacking a serious thread with YM and YPM

[Roger Mellie]

It's my fault, for bringing Y(P)M up, so no need to apologise Yes I enjoyed that clip too.

[Caledonia2]

In Scotland where the uk government decided to shift all the nuclear subs too including the ones that had been in the Thames we are apposed to it. As for the uk punching above its weight in foreign affairs this is no longer the case the EU has more punch than the uk does now. the sub will actually cost £40 billion to run and then at the end of its life the money for decommissioning them is set to come out of the Scottish budget according to a senior uk treasury source. The US and Russia are already planing to reduce and get rid of their weapons stock overtime these weapons were a hangover from the cold war which actually nearly brought the world to armagedon as the russians and americans armed there missiles ready to fire just before they decided to stand down. Bear in mind the Tories are cutting DLA for disabled people and even cutting there benefits so much so a person who is told they are terminally will have to continue to work if they have more than six months to live despite the decreasingly debilitating condition they have.

I would submit it is better to put that money towards protecting the Disabled and less fortunate in society as well as give our troops the proper equipment they need to fight on the front line without getting killed in the name of cost cutting. The uk has not been a major military power for decades and never will be again we are already seeing china increase in influence and the us and uk decrease in influence as Many of the soldiers I know have said we are just Americas puppet now we send our men in to die and then they claim the victory and spoils. One who is the ex commander of the Scottish forces even said that in his opinion trident will never be used but will cost billions to scrap at the end of its life and to run during its life. He feels that they should have spent that money on new naval vessels like aircraft carriers and onn new military equipment relevant to the terrain our troops increasingly find themselves fighting and dying in. As he put it its daft to cut 100 of million from disabled and front line troops as well as front line services then spend £40 billion on a nuclear sub which could be used to lessen the impact on the areas that need protecting the most especially when the UK has a debt of well over a trillion pounds and if the euro collapses our economy will be brought down with it due to the banks buying European debt and the business we get from Europe.

He believes from his time in command that quite a large chunck of the equipment our troops are using are out of date and need replaced and also that the MOD needed to stop and think about its procurement strategy as they are not buying for the terrain that uk troops are increasingly finding themselves fighting in and subsequently having to rely on the Americans to bail them out. He believes it is necessary that a complete overhaul of the uk government defense strategy is needed but thinks they will never learn.

I would like to put on record my thanks to him and all the Scottish and UK troops for what they have done over the years and say our town is very privileged to have seen one of its sons go on to climb that chain of command and become commander in Scotland. I think our disabled troops people and veterans should be getting some of what they are waiting on trident to protect them from the drastic cuts the uk are imposing. Why not cut MP's Salaries and expenses that should save a few million. Or make the MP's go out once every year and fight alongside their troops maybe then will we get better troops and we who have families in the army wont have to dread that knock at the door.

[Invader Zim]

As a nation we have a National debt of £1.046 trillion ( taken at the end of the last financial year) - This year that burden will grow by £167.9 billion.

In 2010 the interest on the national debt was £42.9 billion.

The MOD has just announced the second wave of redundancy's from all 3 armed forces - to save it self money.

So those that say yes we should spend £20 billion on a nuclear deterrent - where is the money coming from ?

[Kev]

So leave it the USA to pay for your defense?

[Invader Zim]

We have a big enough conventional military to defend the UK.

The Nuclear deterrent is to stop who from bombing us ??

More money is spent on the National debt than defence !!!

[Mister R]

As for the uk punching above its weight in foreign affairs this is no longer the case the EU has more punch than the uk does now.

Does it?

You'd be right to say the European Union carries more economic weight than the UK but that's the benefit of a large unified trading bloc (although to be fair this is actually looking a little shaky these days). The problem with the 'Europe answer' is that the EU isn't designed to be a military or foreign policy body. Its designed to foster co-operation and some degree of integration within the Union but it is woefully unprepared to provide any kind of unified response for events outside of Europe. And in fact events within Europe for that matter.

Its worth remembering that the UK and France account for about 50% of Europe's military budget and capacity and 70% of European spending on military research and development. The UK is crucially important to Europe's perceived power on the international stage. More importantly I'd point out that whilst the WTO might recognise Europe as one bloc no one else does. The UN and NATO have no real working relationship with Europe as a whole but rather with individual European states. And the foreign policy of different European states is massively divergent meaning it would be almost impossible to envision any kind of unified European action or policy in foreign policy any time soon.

The idea that Europe has mitigated the need for British foreign policy or presence is simply wrong.

The US and Russia are already planing to reduce and get rid of their weapons stock overtime...

They've been preparing to reduce and disarm for decades now. Neither has.

I would submit it is better to put that money towards protecting the Disabled and less fortunate in society as well as give our troops the proper equipment they need to fight on the front line without getting killed in the name of cost cutting.

False equivalence.

The uk has not been a major military power for decades and never will be again we are already seeing china increase in influence and the us and uk decrease in influence

Not entirely true.

We have a big enough conventional military to defend the UK.

The Nuclear deterrent is to stop who from bombing us ??

More money is spent on the National debt than defence !!!

The IR theory surrounding nuclear weapons has moved well beyond the notion of nuclear deterrents. Its worth remembering that all 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are nuclear powers. There's much more to nuclear weapons then nuclear deterrents.

[sanitynotincluded]

The "no longer a major player" argument is usually trotted out by those who wish it to be the case in support of policies designed to make it the case. The fact remains that the USA and France are the only countries with comparable force projection capacity (admittedly significantly greater in the USAs case), and France is even more lacking in the will to use it.

The problem with the arguments that we no longer need a given defensive capability is that it only becomes apparent how flawed they are when we need the capability but scrapped it to save a few quid.

The UK spends a pathetically small amout on defence, preferring to hide behind the USAs skirts, and if any budget deserved to be spared the axe by commie cameron then that was it. They should revert to calling it the ministry of war as well. Ministry of defence just feeds the delusion that free nations should have to wait until after the attack to defend their interests.

[Parsifal]

Out of interest do those who support Trident feel that Germany for example, the largest economy and largest population in Europe, which has no nuclear weapons is perilously vulnerable?

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

How do you know that you're not alredy pretending that you've still got one?
(and the proposed £20 billion will actually be siphoned off for something else)

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?

NATO. I should read up on NATO, but it's my understanding that if one NATO country is attacked then the others have to come to its defense. Hence the USA is obliged to defend the UK if it is attacked. (I believe that the Falklands are not part of NATO.)

They should revert to calling it the ministry of war as well. Ministry of defence just feeds the delusion that free nations should have to wait until after the attack to defend their interests.

Iraq comes to mind.

[Mister R]

Out of interest do those who support Trident feel that Germany for example, the largest economy and largest population in Europe, which has no nuclear weapons is perilously vulnerable?

Technically it has one. Germany has shared 'ownership' of nuclear weapons with Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Turkey as part of NATO nuclear sharing.

[Mange81]

This thread scares me.

[Invader Zim]

The UK Government is spending more money than it receives - this can not continue.

The Government are already cutting back on the police - armed forces - welfare - delaying the state pension - the funding to local councils reduced - fuel duty to keep rising - rail fares will be allowed to increase by 3% above RPI inflation from 2012, higher education spending will be cut by 40%, and much much more
We can not afford our own nuclear deterent -

[sanitynotincluded]

Defense should be the last thing to be cut, it has already born too much from a woefully inadequate starting position. Some actual cuts to other government spending might be a good place to start.

[Parsifal]

Defense should be the last thing to be cut

What about bloated patronage contracts in return for campaign contributions?
(or does that only happen in the US?)

[Roger Mellie]

NATO. I should read up on NATO, but it's my understanding that if one NATO country is attacked then the others have to come to its defense. Hence the USA is obliged to defend the UK if it is attacked. (I believe that the Falklands are not part of NATO.)

The Falkland Islands is a British Oversea Territory: As I understand it, British Overseas Territories are under UK's NATO membership, since the UK is responsible for the the defence of BOTs (part of "good governance"). Either way the reason USA didn't intervene with Falklands, was reputedly because of Regan's pals in South America.

The problem with the 'Europe answer' is that the EU isn't designed to be a military or foreign policy body.

Yet it has designs to be: Step foward Cathy Ashton, vice-president and high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy. Then there's the European External Action Service, plus the EU embassies that are opening across the world. Although I'm inclined to agree with your analysis that it is "woefully unprepared to provide any kind of unified response for events outside of Europe". It's just another example of the EU trying to justify its existence, empire-building (remember that the EU has always been designed to be "an ever closer union... United States of Europe" as Monnet put it)-- even though NATO has been adequately filling that international defence role for decades.

The MOD has just announced the second wave of redundancy's from all 3 armed forces - to save it self money... where is the money coming from [for a nuclear deterent] ?

You may have just answered your own question there...?

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jun 16 2012, 18:48

[Parsifal]

Out of interest do those who support Trident feel that Germany for example, the largest economy and largest population in Europe, which has no nuclear weapons is perilously vulnerable?

Technically it has one. Germany has shared 'ownership' of nuclear weapons with Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Turkey as part of NATO nuclear sharing.

But does Frau Merkel have a button to push?

[Roger Mellie]

But does Frau Merkel have a button to push?

Not since Sarkozy lost the election

[Parsifal]

But does Frau Merkel have a button to push?

Not since Sarkozy lost the election

[naughtiesrival]

NATO. I should read up on NATO, but it's my understanding that if one NATO country is attacked then the others have to come to its defense. Hence the USA is obliged to defend the UK if it is attacked. (I believe that the Falklands are not part of NATO.)

The Falkland Islands is a British Oversea Territory: As I understand it, British Overseas Territories are under UK's NATO membership, since the UK is responsible for the the defence of BOTs (part of "good governance"). Either way the reason USA didn't intervene with Falklands, was reputedly because of Regan's pals in South America.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed under the North Atlantic Traty of 1949 which, inter alia, commits the members to defending each other against attack in the North Atlantic area (being Europe, North America, Algeria, islands under control of a member int he NOrth Atlantic defined as being north of the Tropic of Cancer).

The Falklands/Las Malvinas/Bits of rock in South Atlantic fall outside this.