Trident, yay or nay?

Trident debate in parliament today. Thought we could kick on off on here.
 
Personally I don’t see the point in spending such a huge sum, and haven’t heard any arguments as to why we should.
 
The arguments tend to be –
 
It’s a deterrent, so our enemies wouldn’t dare bomb us. Who are our enemies in this case – ISIS, North Korea and Russia apparently.

On ISIS even if they did get their hands on a nuclear bomb, why would a group of people so happy to create maximum destruction regardless of any collateral damage be put off bombing us in case we hit them? It’s nonsense.
 
Russia/North Korea – Putin may be a bit mad, but I don’t think he’s that far gone. Not to mention the fact the USA would still hold theirs so MAD would remain the case.
 
Germany doesn’t have a nuclear deterrent, why should we? Just another hangover of the British Empire and the delusion we’re a world power.
 
Take the money and put it into the intelligence services which can actually protect us from the threats we face, small scale – terrorist attacks.

There'll be some kind of conspiracy behind it.

bwfc1874 wrote: 
It’s a deterrent, so our enemies wouldn’t dare bomb us.

Many experts share that opinion. But I'm sure you know better on this issue as usual.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote: 
It’s a deterrent, so our enemies wouldn’t dare bomb us.  

Many experts share that opinion. But I'm sure you know better on this issue as usual.

Many experts advocate the money being better used in the intelligence, threats have changed since the Cold War.

If it's not spent on Trident it can be spent on retraining the workers, up to 7000, made redundant and the NHS?
After all the NHS and workers will always be safe in Tory hands!

Considering it will cost a minimum of £100 billion to renew I'm sure we could find new defence jobs and integrate skilled workers into building infrastructure with the savings.

The SNP don't support Trident and that's where the job majority of the job losses would be incurred.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote: 
It’s a deterrent, so our enemies wouldn’t dare bomb us.  

Many experts share that opinion. But I'm sure you know better on this issue as usual.

Many experts advocate the money being better used in the intelligence, threats have changed since the Cold War.

 
If we have to spend that on the defence budget it would be much better used in modern warfare areas rather than on bombs that will kill us all anyway. We need an army of ninja assassins to take out specific targets. And better intelligence.

But it's all about business.

Agreed Lust. 

Just listening to the debate, laughable really everybody who stands up bangs on about how it's deterring our enemies every day, who are these enemies who are about to fire their nuclear weapons at us? Why hasn't Germany or Ukraine or the multitude of other non nuclear countries been hit with strikes simply for not having a deterrent? Are they just more popular than us?

Yes, they keep us at the top table.

And with shithouse states like Israel and Pakistan having them then it's best we have them as well.

The top table though Copper? It's absolutely meaningless, we'd still be a part of NATO and we'd still be a large economic power. 

Say we did get hit by a nuclear weapon, would the best reaction seriously be to kill millions of innocents in another country? Bollocks would it.

bwfc1874 wrote:Considering it will cost a minimum of £100 billion to renew I'm sure we could find new defence jobs and integrate skilled workers into building infrastructure with the savings.

The SNP don't support Trident and that's where the job majority of the job losses would be incurred.

Are you sure it's 100 Billion?
Barrow and the North West will take the biggest hit on jobs. Approx 200 constituencies do work in the defence industry.
I worked on the Vanguard subs in the 80's and I know of a lot of people likewise still in engineering.
Digressing I heard a tale from a friend who lived on Walney, about Robert Plant sitting outside Vickers in the 80's in his chauffered motor watching the workers coming out and said it reminded him of a Lowry painting.
The guy was Plant's road manager at the time.

okocha wrote:Can we seriously condemn and attack countries for wishing to obtain weapons of mass destruction as long as we still possess them? 

No.

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Considering it will cost a minimum of £100 billion to renew I'm sure we could find new defence jobs and integrate skilled workers into building infrastructure with the savings.

The SNP don't support Trident and that's where the job majority of the job losses would be incurred.

Are you sure it's 100 Billion?
Barrow and the North West will take the biggest hit on jobs. Approx 200 constituencies do work in the defence industry.
I worked on the Vanguard subs in the 80's and I know of a lot of people likewise still in engineering.
Digressing I heard a tale from a friend who lived on Walney, about Robert Plant sitting outside Vickers in the 80's in his chauffered motor watching the workers coming out and said it reminded him of a Lowry painting.
The guy was Plant's road manager at the time.

£100 billion was a conservative estimate (government has refused to commit to a figure). Fair enough on your point on jobs, you know more than me on that, but I'd say both cost and jobs aren't the main point of this in fairness.

I just don't see it as a practical defence, particularly when it's the US who controls it not us. We have a decision over it's existence though, let's put that money into something else.

bwfc1874 wrote:Say we did get hit by a nuclear weapon, would the best reaction seriously be to kill millions of innocents in another country? Bollocks would it.

A lot of your argument is based on you thinking that they are just a deterrent against the other countries who have them. They aren't.

You've to remember that our army, navy and air force is in an utterly pathetic state at the minute.

okocha wrote:Can we seriously condemn and attack countries for wishing to obtain weapons of mass destruction as long as we still possess them? 

Yes. Because we can be trusted more than most not to start WW3.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Considering it will cost a minimum of £100 billion to renew I'm sure we could find new defence jobs and integrate skilled workers into building infrastructure with the savings.

The SNP don't support Trident and that's where the job majority of the job losses would be incurred.

Are you sure it's 100 Billion?
Barrow and the North West will take the biggest hit on jobs. Approx 200 constituencies do work in the defence industry.
I worked on the Vanguard subs in the 80's and I know of a lot of people likewise still in engineering.
Digressing I heard a tale from a friend who lived on Walney, about Robert Plant sitting outside Vickers in the 80's in his chauffered motor watching the workers coming out and said it reminded him of a Lowry painting.
The guy was Plant's road manager at the time.

£100 billion was a conservative estimate (government has refused to commit to a figure). Fair enough on your point on jobs, you know more than me on that, but I'd say both cost and jobs aren't the main point of this in fairness.

I just don't see it as a practical defence, particularly when it's the US who controls it not us. We have a decision over it's existence though, let's put that money into something else.

They're talking 31 on BBC and I've read 40.

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Considering it will cost a minimum of £100 billion to renew I'm sure we could find new defence jobs and integrate skilled workers into building infrastructure with the savings.

The SNP don't support Trident and that's where the job majority of the job losses would be incurred.

Are you sure it's 100 Billion?
Barrow and the North West will take the biggest hit on jobs. Approx 200 constituencies do work in the defence industry.

Could be. I do know our total national expenditure is around £850 billion per annum so spread over a few years it wouldn't have a catastrophic impact on the economy.

That's what gets me about the relatively petty amounts of money that get argued about like "overseas aid" aka British international diplomacy or our nett contribution to the EU. Peanuts in the scheme of things.

Although our national debt is now humungous having doubled under the Tories to approaching £2 trillion! So a lot of our spend is needed just pay the interest, let alone actual debt repayment.

No. It's a massive waste of money which could be better spent on a lot of things, including but certainly not only, improving the effectiveness of the army, navy and air force.

It is not a meaningful deterrent because

1. who is it supposed to be deterring, and
2. we couldn't use it without the permission of the Americans anyway.

Just more pointless posturing like ordering two aircraft carriers for which we have no planes and no role. The fact that they are being built in Gordon Brown's constituency had nothing to do with the decision of course.

xmiles wrote:1. who is it supposed to be deterring?

Maniac leader (can be from virtually any country in the world) wakes up one morning and decides it's a good day to nuke a western power.

"Hmmm, shall I choose USA? No, they would nuke the shit out of us in retaliation. The UK then? No, they'd do the same. Belgium it is then."