Trident?

[Matblack]

Does the UK need a nuclear deterent?

Right now the argument the government is using to justify the keep of Trident is this


Mr Blair said although the Cold War had ended the UK needed nuclear weapons as no-one could be sure another nuclear threat would not emerge in the future.



He also said "it is not utterly fanciful" to "imagine states sponsoring nuclear terrorism from their soil".


We are all pretty aware that any country developing a nuclear arsenal and delivery system would feel the wrath of the USA before it produces anything which could get a few hundred miles off its territory (the producers not the USA).

So we have to assume that what we are being told is that we need to be able to react to locally delivered terrorism (suicide bombs) by unleashing nuclear hell on a country which we deem to have 'sponsored' the terrorists. Given our track record on which country is doing what (so Sadam has nukes?) can we justify having this capability, let alone spending £10-25Bn on a new version?

Your ideas are welcome

MB

[Haly]

I think we're providing a crap and hypocritical example, as we keep them yet keep stating that other countries shouldn't have any nuclear weapons because we've deemed them too unstable to be allowed them.
Who are we to decide what other countries are allowed to do? I'm sure we wouldn't be very happy if other countries pressurised us to do the same (Unless it was the US knowing what Blair's like :rolleyes:)

I'd also say our main concern would be smaller acts of terrorism rather than anything nuclear, and it'd be just a tiny bit of overkill to need nuclear weapons to deal with terrorists imo.

[Rich_L]

I think yes, a nuclear capability is required simply because it's the kind of thing where if (heaven forbid) it was needed then it's not something you can conjure up immediately. Despite the current geo-political situation where it may be hard to envisage any use things can change and maintaining a credible nuclear capability is important.

Perhaps part of it is not placing too much faith in current arrangements and treaties in the event of a nuclear attack - would our allied countries actually follow through with the threat of MAD knowing that it may invoke a nuclear strike on their own population? I think in that scenario there is a distinct possibility that long-standing treaties go out of the window in the face of a nation that has showed it is willing to use it's capability in an offensive manner.

So yes, I think it is necessary, not necessarily for the reasons given by the government, but to ensure future long-term security.

[Stan_Lite]

As long as other "less stable" nations have the capability to produce and use nuclear weapons, there is justification for others to have them as a deterrent to their use.

I would question, however, the need for individual countries like the USA and the UK (amongst others) to stockpile their own.

I would propose a NATO/UN stock of nukes deployed in various strategic locations in member countries throughout the world. These weapons would be under the control of these organisations and only used (either fired or as a threat) with the agreement of the security council.

This would avoid any one country taking it upon themselves to react in a potentially catastrophic manner. It would also spread the cost, rather than a few countries having to foot enormous bills to maintain a nuclear capability.

Stan :)

[Matblack]

I think yes, a nuclear capability is required simply because it's the kind of thing where if (heaven forbid) it was needed then it's not something you can conjure up immediately. Despite the current geo-political situation where it may be hard to envisage any use things can change and maintaining a credible nuclear capability is important.

Perhaps part of it is not placing too much faith in current arrangements and treaties in the event of a nuclear attack - would our allied countries actually follow through with the threat of MAD knowing that it may invoke a nuclear strike on their own population? I think in that scenario there is a distinct possibility that long-standing treaties go out of the window in the face of a nation that has showed it is willing to use it's capability in an offensive manner.

So yes, I think it is necessary, not necessarily for the reasons given by the government, but to ensure future long-term security.

I'm not sure about MAD, especially in the current world senario, we are such a small country that five or ten nuclear missiles could destroy our country. Our respose would be to destroy the other country. Probably in the process sparking off a global war because of encroachment and damage to other soverign nations. It is widely believed that the use of nukes pretty much anywhere will result in ELE so whats the point?

Nukes are only a deterent on the surface, in reality all they are is a money pit.

MB

[Haly]

I would propose a NATO/UN stock of nukes deployed in various strategic locations in member countries throughout the world. These weapons would be under the control of these organisations and only used (either fired or as a threat) with the agreement of the security council.

This would avoid any one country taking it upon themselves to react in a potentially catastrophic manner. It would also spread the cost, rather than a few countries having to foot enormous bills to maintain a nuclear capability.


Now that sounds like a better plan to me. Seems better controlled. Not that it'd ever happen probably, doubt they'd all be able to come to agreement over it.

[Matblack]

Now that sounds like a better plan to me. Seems better controlled. Not that it'd ever happen probably, doubt they'd all be able to come to agreement over it.

They never would

If nukes were ever used you face massive repercussions, as was seen with Chernobyl radioactive fall out is no respecter of land boundries, anyone who threw a nuke at Southern Ireland for example is effectively declearing war on the UK because of the damage they would be doing to us in the process. I believe this is the spark which starts a fire which destroys the world.

The ONLY way I can see MAD working now is that in the case of war a small number of nuclear powers have the ability NOT to defend themselves but to push the button on THE WORLD effectively ending life on the planet not repressing an enemy.

MB

[Rich_L]

I'm not sure about MAD, especially in the current world senario, we are such a small country that five or ten nuclear missiles could destroy our country. Our respose would be to destroy the other country. Probably in the process sparking off a global war because of encroachment and damage to other soverign nations. It is widely believed that the use of nukes pretty much anywhere will result in ELE so whats the point? Quite simply I disagree with the perception that the use of nukes will result in ELE - certainly the use of nuclear weaponry on another nuclear-armed nation would result in the mutual annihilation of both nations but I feel that the remaining nations would be forced to take an entirely pragmatic view and deal with the consequences rather than engage in global nuclear warfare resulting in total destruction. At the end of the day treaties only mean so much - how much would countries actually be willing to sacrifice to come to the aid of another nation? I think the days of countries throwing their men into battle to assist another (such as WWI, WWII) are long gone and countries would take a more selfish pragmatic view.

Now that sounds like a better plan to me. Seems better controlled. Not that it'd ever happen probably, doubt they'd all be able to come to agreement over it. The problem there being that how much faith would you have in NATO/the UN/whatever global body was in charge of the weaponry of actually following through on it's threat? If the UK came under attack could we be guaranteed that our allies would agree to use a nuclear strike, or would we be cast-off and the new, attacking nation be accepted into the fold?

For example, China decided to mount a non-WMD assisted invasion of Japan - with the threat that if anyone else got involved they would be subject to nuclear attack - could we guarantee that we would still assist with the prospect of nuclear attack? Or would we take a more pragmatic view and let them fight it out, then deal with the new China-Japan nation or whatever it ended up.

Whilst our situation is slightly different in terms of who could feasibly invade, I think the principle of maintaining an independently controlled nuclear deterrent is still sound. :)

[Will]

I don't see the point. We already have nuclear subs and other such deterrents. why spend so much money on it. We don't need it - or at least don't need any more.

Is having a nuclear arsenal really a deterrent I wonder? Frankly if any nation drops a nuke on anyone the world is pretty much over - I would hope that we do not respond by launching a nuclear retaliation. World opinion and commerce would shut down within the attacking nation for a start (one would hope) - it's just a big stalemate at the moment. They serve no purpose at all. Why decimate a country and effectively our world but destroying a country and going for an eye for an eye? If none of us had nukes, there wouldn't be this fear. Furthermore, if only a few infadel countries did, well I don't think they'd be crazy enough to use them frankly.

It's all political and psychological. If none of the superpowers had nukes, and people like Iran and so on did, there would be huge international pressure for them to get rid of them. If they, godforbid, did use them against a nation, there would be a lot more sanctions available, and power to NATO for doing something about it in a economic, socio-political manner that would probably be more crippling.

Nuclear weaponary will lead us to our demise.

[Admiral Huddy]

You can't tell me that the US and UK don't have them already. I'm sorry but I've never believed for one minute that they ever disarmed. Not al the time their is a threat from middle eastern countries and the far east (NK for example)

What annoys me is that the US is so concerned over how other countries choose to defend themselves. So a middle eastern country is invaded because of it posses a threat to western civilisation and world because they choose to defend themselves with nuclear deterent yet they themselves can? Doesn't really make sense. Besides, I thought that both India and Pakistan had an arsenal of nukes already, yet there has been no intervention from the US there.. has there?

I'm not sure what sort of message this sends out to the rest of the world. Would they be thinking that every country has a right. Is the UK defying the US? Why would they be doing that? One thing for sure, it means that the incident in North Korea is now not a valid arguement. How can it be if the UK is doing the same thing.

The only thing a nuclear arsenal will achieve is a world wide stand-off.

[Von Smallhausen]

It's a sad state of affairs when the threat of nuclear destruction has prevented a major world war since WWII but it is a fact that it has done precisely that.

Whether the old Soviet forces massed over the Iron Curtain would have poured over into Western Europe or whether they wouldn't is academic now, but I can not think of a single greater reason than the existence of nuclear weapons. The UK's first deterrent was the air launched bomb carried by the old V-Force of Vulcan bombers and that shifted to a naval option when British ballistic submarines started carrying the Poseidon missile in the 1960s in R class subs and then upgraded to the current Trident missiles carried by V class subs, which is our current deterrent.

The Cold War is over and it is fair to ask why do we still need a deterrent ? Terrorism is the new threat we face, why do we need nukes ?

I would like to see nuclear weapons go but the real problem is not Britain possessing them, it is who else has them or is trying to get them. Look at Iran. They are researching nuclear capabilities which they claim are for civil use only but what guarantees do we have that will remain. What is to say that they will pass that technology on, or provide material on to terror groups for a dirty bomb. They sponsor fundamentalist groups such as Hezbollah and fund weapons, why should this not be the next evolution ?

North Korea as well. Not only do they possess nuclear weaponry, they fired a missile, no warhead, over Japan which is a grave threat to security in the region. Japan is a non-nuclear nation in terms of weaponry and there are thousands of US troops stationed there.

While other nations possess nuclear weapons, I feel that Britain must do also. As for Trident being replaced at a cost of over £20 billion, could the life of the current system not be extended as the threat faced differs hugely from the Cold War era ?

As for Stan's idea .... very interesting option.

[Admiral Huddy]

^^ but you can't create a rule for one and a different rule for another. If one country does have a nuclear deterent then so should any. Not that I agree with them however. The cold war was a terrifying time, that so that the government issued a "protect and survive guide" (any one remember?) and to live in fear of that all over again. well..


It's better to know that countries DO have nukes than rather than having to take a guess at those that do. Waste Millions invading them to find nothing.

[Von Smallhausen]

^^ but you can't create a rule for one and a different rule for another. If one country does have a nuclear deterent then so should any. Not that I agree with them however. The cold war was a terrifying time, that so that the government issued a "protect and survive guide" (any one remember?) and to live in fear of that all over again. well.

I disagree there. Compare Britain and North Korea. North Korea is not a responsible enough nation to possess them and also, take the wider picture into account. North Korea get them ... then South Korea ... maybe Taiwan then wants them and Japan renege on previous non-proliferation pledges as a result of the increased threat in the region.

It's better to know that countries DO have nukes than rather than having to take a guess at those that do. Waste Millions invading them to find nothing.

There's knowing who have them and there's not knowing what they will do with them. Ask any country their opinion about Britain having nuclear weapons and whether they threaten other countries. Most will say they are responsible enough to have them. You wouldn't see Britain firing a test missile over Europe ...... North Korea fired one over Japan. That is the difference, what will they do with a fully operational missile system ?

[semi-pro waster]

Compare Britain and North Korea. North Korea is not a responsible enough nation to possess them and also, take the wider picture into account. North Korea get them ... then South Korea ... maybe Taiwan then wants them and Japan renege on previous non-proliferation pledges as a result of the increased threat in the region.

This is purely supposition on my part but I suspect that North Korea performs some of it's actions partly to test the limits and partly because the best way to maintain power for Kim Il Jong is to remain isolationist. Britain and NK are at opposite ends of the political spectrum (more or less although we can argue about dictatorships if you want ;)) and they both remain relatively stable for diametrically opposite reasons, Britain is stable because the populace are fairly well informed or at least have the access to information and so realise that the situation could be worse, NK doesn't have much access to the outside world and the population believe that their isolation protects them from the evil 'outsiders' plus they don't see what they are "missing out on".

I believe most informed observers reckon that for Japan to build working nuclear weapons would take a matter of months rather than years so they need to stay reassured that they are safe(ish) to prevent another nuclear power emerging, and emerging quickly.

I don't think I'm informed enough yet to make a proper judgement so before I leap in feet first I'll ask - what is wrong with the current Trident subs?

[Stan_Lite]

I probably should have stated in my previous post that my idea is idealistic and almost certainly unworkable.

The prospect that all member states of either organisation could agree on a system whereby this could become reality is inconceivable but I would put it forward as an idea to be worked upon with the hope of finding some common ground, whereby the member states could at least arrive at some consensus and possibly formulate some form of realistic global agreement.

I realise that this is almost impossible as most member states within these organisations will have their own agendas and politics would mean common sense could never prevail.

Stan :)

[Treefrog]

You can't tell me that the US and UK don't have them already. I'm sorry but I've never believed for one minute that they ever disarmed. Not al the time their is a threat from middle eastern countries and the far east (NK for example)

What annoys me is that the US is so concerned over how other countries choose to defend themselves. So a middle eastern country is invaded because of it posses a threat to western civilisation and world because they choose to defend themselves with nuclear deterent yet they themselves can? Doesn't really make sense. Besides, I thought that both India and Pakistan had an arsenal of nukes already, yet there has been no intervention from the US there.. has there?

Yes, the US has quite happily allowed and helped India to develop nuclear power and weapons in return for promises of alliance and use of their territory. Pakistan, with it's history of disagreements with India, was able to gain them to keep the balance, and no fuss was caused because Musharraf - that enlightened, democratically elected leader - was useful to the US in their campaign against Al Qa'eda.

[Dr. Z]

My views are that we should have a deterrent and that deterrent should be "current" - that is, the replacement of the Trident system.

I would actually advocate a move that is even more expensive than what is currently planned - at the moment our nuclear arsenal is shared with the USA - we have access to a "joint stock" of warheads that are maintained by the US. This gives the US a certain power over what we can and cannot use our nuclear weapons for, and I am not comfortable with that at the moment.

The fact we have nukes is nothing at all to do with MAD or much of the old cold war paranoia but more to do with ensuring a seat at the world table. Britain as a world power is past its day and with the demise of our manufacturing industries we are increasingly losing our importance to the world economy. Having a nuclear arsenal is a very good way of making sure we still have a say, as silly as that may be. Countries with nuclear weapons traditionally get more respect than those without and I believe disarming would be hugely detrimental to the UKs political objectives in Europe and the wider world in the long run.

[Garp]

I think yes, a nuclear capability is required simply because it's the kind of thing where if (heaven forbid) it was needed then it's not something you can conjure up immediately. Despite the current geo-political situation where it may be hard to envisage any use things can change and maintaining a credible nuclear capability is important.

Perhaps part of it is not placing too much faith in current arrangements and treaties in the event of a nuclear attack - would our allied countries actually follow through with the threat of MAD knowing that it may invoke a nuclear strike on their own population? I think in that scenario there is a distinct possibility that long-standing treaties go out of the window in the face of a nation that has showed it is willing to use it's capability in an offensive manner.

So yes, I think it is necessary, not necessarily for the reasons given by the government, but to ensure future long-term security.

Got to agree with Rich here. We need Trident (or its replacement) more as a deterrent than as an actual weapon.

I don't like the idea of nuclear weapons at all, and I'd love for them to be all wiped out safely, but I'm still a realist, and accept that now this genie is out of the bottle there is no way for it to be put back in.