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

[Enigmatic Paragon]

To get back on topic:

Should the UK maintain an independent nuclear deterrent: Yes.

1) It is rather shortsighted to say that they will never be needed. Prior to WW2, most (western) countries ran down their military capacity on the basis that they did not see war as a possibility within a 20 year horizon. Of course, we see how well that turned out....

2) On the topic of military capacity in general, European nations in general are already heavily reliant on the US for anything outside their own borders. And I mean that in a very literal fashion. The intervention in Libya being a recent example where the Europeans had the intention but not the capacity to act, and had to request US assistance (the Americans were somewhat annoyed - actually preferring to stay out of the picture as much as possible, but complied with the request).

3) US strategic interests will not always align with that of the UK. Sure they're allies - close allies even. But allies does not mean the same country, and even close allies will have differing strategic interest (and accordingly, different views) on various topics. Maintaining a credible independent nuclear deterrent is like an insurance policy in the event you want to have some weight on an important security issue without being (as) constrained by whether the US agrees with the UK and will provide backup or not.

4) I think most nuclear powers could reasonably pursue of reduction (as opposed to elimination) of nuclear arms / inventory without compromising on security. For the fiscal hawks out there, this is probably the most prudent course of action to advocate.

[sexxiiijames]

We should have something. A county with nothing obviously wouldn't stand a chance.

I think it is horrific that countries even need defense against other countries. We're all human.

The UK is in a lucky position, although we have enemies, we have powerful allies. The US being one of them. they spend the most on defense than any other country, we could always call on them if need be.

I just wish we didn't have to spend huge amounts of money, to prevent someone dropping a bomb, of sorts, on us.

[up4fun]

This morning is the first time I noticed this thread going back to 2010. I read most of it, skimmed some, and ignored posts from individuals whom I believe not to be particularly sane. To be honest, I cringed at some of the comments with respect to the U.S.

As to the original question: yes, the U.K. should maintain its nuclear weaponry at some level; as well, France and the nuclear sharing states should maintain their nuclear status. Among the comments were several suggesting that the U.S. has plenty of firepower to step in and offer protection, if needed. And, I'm quite sure we would, regardless of Europe's nuclear weaponry status. This would be the case irrespective of our NATO responsibilities; we need Europe as much as Europe needs us. I think that Europe and the EU need to shoulder a greater burden than they have, previously, and let us off the hook a little.

The discussion veered off to the Falklands for a bit, and I'm sorry to return to it. Some folks seemed to believe that the U.S. should have done more to assist the U.K. Reagan did what he (and most Americans) believed was the best, under these specific circumstances, to provide assistance; U.S. ports were made available to the U.K. for refueling, repairs to ships, medical assistance, etc. Does anybody really that that we would have ever thought to have expected NATO's assistance if the shoe had been on the other foot? If American Samoa were attacked, we'd take care of the problem as did the U.K in the Falklands.

Anyhoo...just my not particularly incisive remarks.

This post has been edited by up4fun: Jul 14 2012, 16:00

[markabba]

In an ideal world noone should have them but as they do we need them unfortunately

[Joe Hart Lover]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

Interesting read. Don't discount it due to it being Wikipedia; sources and citations are always listed!

Note how France and the U.K are completely untouched. Being 2 of the 3 Western Nations who have their own Nuclear Weapons.

The argument that the USSR is now gone is false. Just because one enemy is dead doesn't mean more will appear. Russia in fact may reemerge as a Superpower. India and Brazil seem like neutral potential super powers but there's always the question of China.

And let's not forget rogue nations such as North Korea.



This post has been edited by Joe Hart Lover: Aug 28 2012, 22:17