Support NeoGAF

[Sir_Crocodile]

I'm on board with this. I'm also rankled at the idea that France's nuclear deterrent is cheaper and better.

Can we not just buy theirs instead of the US one?

 

[pootle]

1) There isn't, but the fact this is the question makes me think that perhaps you still don't entirely understand the point. The threat of nuclear destruction is implicit in everything when dealing with a nuclear power. You could snub a French diplomat at a embassy party in Malta and they could nuke you. This would be umbelievably unlikely, of course. The idea - in this day and age, when we're not trying to defeat the Japanese Imperial military - is that the greater the risk harming the UK offers, the less likely a country will be to do it. This is good.

2) We couldn't really destroy any countries - we only have one sub out at a time and they carry, I think, a maximum of 16 warheads.

If I could answer your second point first- 8 missiles, carrying 40 warheads, each warhead is 100kilotons, although the yield is variable. Upgraded trident warheads will be 475kilotons each.

As for your first point you are right. I see no risk of the UK using nuclear weapons on its own. There is no scenario I can think of where David Cameron or Ed Milliband or any other prime minister decides to launch a unilateral nuclear attack. So if the threat of launching a nuclear strike isn't there then there's no need for the nukes. As I said before, if it's ww3 we're all fucked anyway.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Can we not just buy theirs instead of the US one?

We should at least get a quote

 

[DBT85]

We should at least get a quote

Always get 3 quotes, everyone knows that.

 

[nelsonroyale]

The 'utility' of the nuclear deterrent could be argued when you are talking about large power blocks... i.e., during the Cold War and when China was on the rise.

We are in a different era now however. I can't see large countries going into conflict in the near future, although climate change might change the rules of the game considerably. The heart of combat between powerful nations is now by far through economic means, and national boundaries are transgressed by corporations anyway.

For me, it comes down to both ugliness of the weapons and their cost. Nuclear war is incredibly unlikely at the moment. However, disarmament won't happen, even if Britain was willing to propose unilateral, Pakistan, India, Israel and Russia (and first and foremost the US), won't do it. France is the most likely out of that bunch by far. Still, Germany doesnt haven nuclear, Japan doesn't. The chance of nuclear war is slight and the weapons are abbhorent. The price is a fucking waste when there are numerous better investments we could make. When it comes to the UK, there is no evidence that the 'pragmatic approach' of keeping is effective as a deterent. To put it simply, we don't have any immediate threats to our country with nuclear capability. And if terrorists did get hold of them, there is nothing we could do to deter them from using it very likely.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As for your first point you are right. I see no risk of the UK using nuclear weapons on its own. There is no scenario I can think of where David Cameron or Ed Milliband or any other prime minister decides to launch a unilateral nuclear attack. So if the threat of launching a nuclear strike isn't there then there's no need for the nukes. As I said before, if it's ww3 we're all fucked anyway.

But surely you appreciated that the situation we find ourselves in now - in which you can envision no situation in which we'd use them - has been gestated in the last ~60 or so years in which we have had nuclear weapons? Obviously a bunch of other stuff has happened to ease tensions in Europe during that time - the banding of NATO due to the cold war, the US military dominance, greater trade and globalisation etc. But I don't think it's logically sound to use the metric of "threat" to determine if we need nuclear weapons whilst we have nuclear weapons when the key argument in favour of them is that they reduce threats.

Of course, this line of thinking also opens me up to the charge of "Oh, so when there are threats you'd say we need nukes, and when there aren't you'd say that it's because we already have them?" Well, yup, pretty much. Nuclear weapons won't protect us from everything. But they don't need to protect us from everything to be a worthwhile investment in my view.

 

[Par Score]

The Conservatives attacking Labour over possibly going into coalition with a party who is committed to scraping Trident is about as silly as the Conservatives attacking Labour for possibly going into coalition with a party committed to abolishing Tuition Fees.

All these attacks over things which the public has no direct say over, and which rely on hypothetical post-election Commons arithmetic, are just so pathetic. It's never been more obvious that the big parties have, in the main, fuck all positive to say about anything.

 

[pootle]

The threat of nuclear destruction is implicit in everything when dealing with a nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons won't protect us from everything. But they don't need to protect us from everything to be a worthwhile investment in my view.

I suppose it just comes down to perspective.

I think that as long as there's no reason where another country would make the UK government launch its nukes unilaterally then the threat of nuclear destruction isn't present and if there's no threat then they are a waste of money.

 

[Yen]

"Vote Labour, Get World War 3"

Spoiler

/s

 

[Jackpot]

Nukes are technologically and politically obsolete. People only want them because they're used to solve everything in movies. They did nothing for the Falklands war. If you want a stronger defense think of all the training and equipment you could get for soldiers for £10 billion. We already have enough fancy OTT weapon systems. It's the infantry that have been worn down by our recent conflicts.

 

[kmag]

TNS poll:
LAB 33% (+1),
CON 30% (-3),
LIB DEM 8% (0),
UKIP 19% (+3),
GREEN 4% (-1),
OTHER 7 (0)
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-election-race-remains-tight

Fieldwork is 2nd – 7th
Sample size of 1207

That's four polls in a row showing a Labour lead, so it's almost certain the next one will show a Tory lead as that's the way things have went when one party has taken a consistent 'lead'. UKIP seems too high there and the Tories too low, but all the movements are within the MOE.

Tories delaying their manifesto launch by one day next week so they can 'unpick' Labour's manifesto. For a campaign which seems to be all about deriding Miliband as weak, that's awfully er weak.

 

[Lirlond]

If you want Trident that bad park it on the Thames.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Nukes are technologically and politically obsolete. People only want them because they're used to solve everything in movies. They did nothing for the Falklands war. If you want a stronger defense think of all the training and equipment you could get for soldiers for £10 billion. We already have enough fancy OTT weapon systems. It's the infantry that have been worn down by our recent conflicts.

I basically agree with this. We just wouldn't use nuclear weapons over the Falklands; it'd be overkill in the extreme. Conventional weaponry would suffice to deter Argentina in the unlikely event they tried anything in a way that would induce less casualties; a vital part of making sure the resultant peace is a less hostile one. The number of countries we would use nuclear weapons against is vanishingly small; it's really just Russia, and the United States has that covered anyway.

 

[RedShift]

Can't we just tell everyone we still have Trident but secretly spend the money on something not completely useless?

if we ever get called out on it everyone is going to die anyway and firing off a few more nukes won't do any good so it doesn't really matter.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Can't we just tell everyone we still have Trident but secretly spend the money on something not completely useless?

if we ever get called out on it everyone is going to die anyway and firing off a few more nukes won't do any good so it doesn't really matter.

That's what I reckon Israel's doing. They're all "We won't confirm anything" and all the NatSec analysts are all "well well yes yes, of course they have them, of course" and the Israelis are all "lololol like fuck do we have them, you think all these olive groves grow on trees?"

 

[DBT85]

Can't we just tell everyone we still have Trident but secretly spend the money on something not completely useless?

if we ever get called out on it everyone is going to die anyway and firing off a few more nukes won't do any good so it doesn't really matter.

Are you suggesting we bluff that our previous bluff is still in place?

 

[Walshicus]

Guess what, you can find anti Trident politicians on all sides of the political spectrum, including Tories, and that's what this commission was made up of.

That's because Trident is wasteful bullshit.

I mean I'm in favour of an independent nuclear defense capability, but Trident isn't that.

 

[Jackpot]

I can't think of a single scenario where the threat is so existential that it requires a nuclear response instead of a conventional cruise missile yet so small that none of our allies would step up. Unless you're saying we're spending an exorbitant amount of money on the rare chance we're invaded by the US. In which case why aren't we spending money on equally improbable but lethal scenarios like asteroid defense? Or even real and present dangers like climate change? But for some reason this particular white elephant must be funded.

We've never used them and we won't. There's no tactical scenario that can't be handled by massive conventional bombs and politically you'd be persona non grata if you ever used them. Why not spend it on defenses we do use all the time like soldiers and air support?

We're not going to lose our UNSC seat just like other countries didn't gain a seat as soon as they became nuclear powers. Non-nuclear powers like Italy don't get steamrolled by occupying forces on a weekly basis because they had no deterrent to wave around.

Seriously, in this world today why are people calling for more nuclear weapons?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Because the threats we face today are how they are, in part, because we have nuclear weapons. The main argument in favour of Nukes is that they actually stop conflict. The fact we're using the low chance of a pan-european war as evidence of our safety indicates, to me, that they're working. It's like getting your brake pads changed every 5 years because it says to do so in the manual and then going "Ahh, why do I keep changing these brake pads - they haven't failed once, yet!"

 

[crayman]

The point of a second strike nuclear option is not to use it - it's just to have it. That's enough to prevent nuclear war, and maintain the balance of power.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Scottish people: The SNP have long done better at the Scottish Parliament than at Westminster. This is roughly analagous to how much better UKIP do in the EU elections vs Westminster.

With UKIP, this is because no one gives a fuck about the EU elections and just likes to give it a kick. I assume this isn't the case with the Scottish Parliament, so why the difference? It's worth noting that the polls this year suggest that this won't be the case this year, but given they've always done well in the SP, does this suggest that - rather than the Referendum actually changing anyone's party allegiance - people who were already SNP supporters have traditionally just been voting tactically in GE's? But this doesn't seem to make too much sense to me either because too many seats have enormous Labour majority (ie who are they trying to tactically keep out by voting Labour?!) Has there really been a ground swell of increased support since the referendum? But if so, why are their Westminster constituency voteshare predictions roughly in line with their SP votes from 2011 in many (though not all) cases?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because the threats we face today are how they are, in part, because we have nuclear weapons. The main argument in favour of Nukes is that they actually stop conflict. The fact we're using the low chance of a pan-european war as evidence of our safety indicates, to me, that they're working. It's like getting your brake pads changed every 5 years because it says to do so in the manual and then going "Ahh, why do I keep changing these brake pads - they haven't failed once, yet!"

Nuclear weapons don't stop conflict between nuclear powers. Say we entered a conventional war with Russia, the rest of Europe fell, and the New Soviets launch a surprise invasion of Hull. When do you launch the nukes at Moscow? I mean, they have counter-strike capabilities.

Do you fire them when Hull falls? No, because it's probably preferable that Hull lives under Soviet occupation than Hull is a nuclear wasteland with everyone dead. Do you fire them when the entirety of the North has fallen? No, because it is probably preferable that the North lives under Soviet occupation than the North is a nuclear wasteland with everyone dead. Do you fire them when everything but Cardiff has fallen? No, because it is probably preferable that the United Kingdom is under Soviet occupation than a nuclear wasteland with everyone dead.

I mean, the last one is debatable - nuclear weapons would probably target a key selection of around 5-6 cities, so it may be it'd be better to have the populations of London, Bristol, Portsmouth, Glasgow, Birmingham and so on wiped out in a nuclear holocaust than to endure Soviet occupation. Who knows. The point is that nuclear weapons are only ever going to be used in a situation of absolute war: where the very existence of two states in their current form is an issue. Up until that point, even two nuclear powers will very happily go to war with each other if they are sufficiently motivated to do so; MAD only stops nuclear powers starting nuclear wars and absolute, it doesn't do anything to their ability to fight conventional wars.

Given that, why do we bother having them? What possible country could seriously envisage an absolute war with the United Kingdom? There is literally only a single candidate: Russia. That's basically the entire reason NATO exists.

 

[Jackpot]

Because the threats we face today are how they are, in part, because we have nuclear weapons. The main argument in favour of Nukes is that they actually stop conflict. The fact we're using the low chance of a pan-european war as evidence of our safety indicates, to me, that they're working. It's like getting your brake pads changed every 5 years because it says to do so in the manual and then going "Ahh, why do I keep changing these brake pads - they haven't failed once, yet!"

And I could respond with the tiger-repelling rock analogy. What conflict did our nuclear weapons stop? You could argue for the US having nukes but those same arguments don't apply to the UK.

The point of a second strike nuclear option is not to use it - it's just to have it. That's enough to prevent nuclear war, and maintain the balance of power.

Who are we counter-balancing? What evidence is there that they acted as a deterrent? Did Russia hold back in the 60s because they knew the UK had nukes?

Why have so many other first-world countries all managed to avoid wars without them? Surely that's evidence enough that your assertion is incorrect.

 

[Kathian]

Scottish people: The SNP have long done better at the Scottish Parliament than at Westminster. This is roughly analagous to how much better UKIP do in the EU elections vs Westminster.

With UKIP, this is because no one gives a fuck about the EU elections and just likes to give it a kick. I assume this isn't the case with the Scottish Parliament, so why the difference? It's worth noting that the polls this year suggest that this won't be the case this year, but given they've always done well in the SP, does this suggest that - rather than the Referendum actually changing anyone's party allegiance - people who were already SNP supporters have traditionally just been voting tactically in GE's? But this doesn't seem to make too much sense to me either because too many seats have enormous Labour majority (ie who are they trying to tactically keep out by voting Labour?!) Has there really been a ground swell of increased support since the referendum? But if so, why are their Westminster constituency voteshare predictions roughly in line with their SP votes from 2011 in many (though not all) cases?

It was from Holyrood the SNP grew support. 2010 was the first GE after they had power, in the end Scotland rallied behind Gordon Brown.

 

[Jezbollah]

I wonder if the SNP would vote for the renewal of Trident if it meant relocating it from Scotland to England?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I mean, the last one is debatable - nuclear weapons would probably target a key selection of around 5-6 cities, so it may be it'd be better to have the populations of London, Bristol, Portsmouth, Glasgow, Birmingham and so on wiped out in a nuclear holocaust than to endure Soviet occupation. Who knows. The point is that nuclear weapons are only ever going to be used in a situation of absolute war: where the very existence of two states in their current form is an issue. Up until that point, even two nuclear powers will very happily go to war with each other if they are sufficiently motivated to do so; MAD only stops nuclear powers starting nuclear wars and absolute, it doesn't do anything to their ability to fight conventional wars.

Given that, why do we bother having them? What possible country could seriously envisage an absolute war with the United Kingdom? There is literally only a single candidate: Russia. That's basically the entire reason NATO exists.

Oh God!

Seriously guys you'd better fire the f-ing missiles if that happens.

Edit:

"Soviet" occupation? Get with the times grandad.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd say "Please, take Hull. Is there anything else you'd like, north of Watford?"

But really, I'm not sure why you're so sure of the fact that nukes don't stop nuclear-armed countries going to war. The last 60 years has been unusually - perhaps uniquely - free of large scale wars between large powers. I appreciate that time gets compressed through the lens of a history text book, but for vast swathes of Europe's history, there have been wars between major powers. If it's not the Dutch and Portuguese its England and France, or whatever. As ive said, there are a lot of reasons for this beyond nukes ("free trade stops wars!") But has there been a time in history when two super powers like the USA and the USSR were in the throes of high tension competition for so long without any active military entanglement with each other? Sure, the US had Vietnam and the USSR had Afghanistan, but an actual war? Even the blood thirsty Germans have largely kept their heads down!

Personally, I'm convinced that nuclear weapons have lead to the post-war era being more peaceful than if they didnt exist, and there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that we have never been living in a more peaceful time. I dont want us to risk this, and I'm happy for us to contribute to it. I also hold the same view re: the size of the American military. The fact that no one could even come close to them both makes it a) ridiculed for spending so much and b) a validation of that choice to spend it.

Also, I wrote this entire post whilst sitting on the toilet at work. You're welcome.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Oh God!

Seriously guys you'd better fire the f-ing missiles if that happens.

Edit:

"Soviet" occupation? Get with the times grandad.

No, that's what happens if we do fire them. Bristol just gets to be occupied if we don't fire them.

Also I said the New Soviets, gimme a break!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

No, that's what happens if we do fire them. Bristol just gets to be occupied if we don't fire them.

Also I said the New Soviets, gimme a break!

Ah right, I completely misread.

"Grandad" comment cheerfully withdrawn too.

 

[Jackpot]

But really, I'm not sure why you're so sure of the fact that nukes don't stop nuclear-armed countries going to war. The last 60 years has been unusually - perhaps uniquely - free of large scale wars between large powers.

You need evidence. Why have the UK's nuclear weapons been a factor? Why do we need them now? The world's changed, it's the same reason we don't care about battleships or large standing armies. Why must we have a solution for these nuclear pie-in-the-sky scenarios but not other deadly scenarios like tidal waves?

Why has Spain survived without nukes but for some reason we wouldn't?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

We have nuclear weapons to maintain our veto on the UN security council which ensures our interests overseas are not left unprotected. The US and France are unreliable partners when it comes to overseas territories. Losing the nuclear deterrent would severely impact our claim to a permanent seat and veto on the UNSC.

As for moving it out of Faslane, there is already an MoD viability report being carried out about moving it to a base in England or Wales, preferably England. Portsmouth is the most likely permanent base. However, that also means Portsmouth will receive a massive shipbuilding upgrade so the submarine and engine construction will move down to England as well.

Even then, Trident is budgeted at £3bn per year for 30 years from 2020-2050, some of it will be paid from sources outside of the regular defence budget (direct Treasury funding) and it will ensure we meet the 2% defence spending NATO target.

I don't think nuclear weapons are a necessity for warfare in the modern era, our enemies are scattered and fight guerilla campaigns and I find it highly unlikely we will enter a conventional war against Russia in the future. However, the expenditure is absolutely necessary to ensure Britain's overseas interests are protected by our continued presence on the UNSC as well as our veto. The loss of this would do irreparable damage to the nation.

So the question isn't whether we need Trident for war, it is pretty obvious we don't. The question is whether we want to maintain our global influence and for me £3bn per year is a pretty small price for the amount of influence our permanent UNSC seat and veto gives us.

As for why the French system is cheaper, they have a much bigger civilian nuclear programme which feeds directly into their weapons programme. Sourcing the plutonium and weapons grade uranium is much cheaper for them.

What I would say is there is no need for us to have 250 nukes and maintain such a high number of active missiles. Reducing that figure and continuing our commitment to the NPT would not only give us some moral high ground, but it would also make it less expensive.

 

[CyclopsRock]

You need evidence. Why have the UK's nuclear weapons been a factor?

Why has Spain survived without nukes but for some reason we wouldn't?

Because they've been happy to outsource their protection to another country. That's not something I'm keen on the UK doing (and, indeed, this may be an argument against Trident specifically but not nukes generally).

 

[crayman]

Who are we counter-balancing? What evidence is there that they acted as a deterrent? Did Russia hold back in the 60s because they knew the UK had nukes?

Why have so many other first-world countries all managed to avoid wars without them? Surely that's evidence enough that your assertion is incorrect.

It's impossible to answer these questions, as we did have nukes - there is no way of testing. Italy is part of the NATO alliance which gives them protection by proxy. Sure, we could rely on the USA for all our nuke needs, but I think that one NATO state having sole access to nuclear weapons in NATO is problematic in it's own way.

In my opinion - while Russia and other such governments possess nuclear weapons - it would be better if we did as well.

Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence shield - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ies-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html
RAF jets scrambled after Russian bombers spotted off coast of Cornwall http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-spotted-off-coast-of-cornwall-10055838.html
Vladimir Putin says Russia was preparing to use nuclear weapons 'if necessary' and blames US for Ukraine crisis - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ne-crisis-in-crimea-documentary-10109615.html
Russia threatens to use 'nuclear force' over Crimea and the Baltic states - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...er-crimea-and-the-baltic-states-10150565.html
and so on.

 

[DBT85]

Because the threats we face today are how they are, in part, because we have nuclear weapons. The main argument in favour of Nukes is that they actually stop conflict. The fact we're using the low chance of a pan-european war as evidence of our safety indicates, to me, that they're working. It's like getting your brake pads changed every 5 years because it says to do so in the manual and then going "Ahh, why do I keep changing these brake pads - they haven't failed once, yet!"

I'll give you that they certainly started the calmer years of outright war post WWII, but today the entire world is inextricably linked economically and the US has an arsenal so monumental that there is no need for the UK to maintain a deterrent. Because I ask, whom are we deterring from doing something?

Do we honestly think that than any time in the future the US will stop poking its nose in every corner of the planet with its huge Navy and Airforce, and that at some point they might stop being chummy with us?

Do we think that Al Qaeda are going to stop plotting to blow up the UK because we might launch a nuclear strike? Is it us having a nuke that is stopping Russia from invading and stealing all our jerbs? Or the French? or maybe Merkel is secretly building a weapons stockpile and sewing nazi badges because as soon as we don't have nukes that we'll never use, they are coming for us again.

I'm totally ok with the US being the people to foot the bill when it comes to nukes and they'll sure as shit never stop doing it.

I realise it's not a totally serious look at the issue, but another YPM clip just highlights it further. Who are we deterring and would we really press the button in response to anything other than another nuclear attack on the UK, at which point it would be moot.

https://youtu.be/IX_d_vMKswE?t=21s

With all the stuff going on in the Ukraine they weren't threatened with nuclear war, they were threatened with sanctions to their economy. If they moved in and took the rest of the Ukraine would we fire then? Or if they move in on Germany?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We have nuclear weapons to maintain our veto on the UN security council which ensures our interests overseas are not left unprotected. The US and France are unreliable partners when it comes to overseas territories. Losing the nuclear deterrent would severely impact our claim to a permanent seat and veto on the UNSC.

As for moving it out of Faslane, there is already an MoD viability report being carried out about moving it to a base in England or Wales, preferably England. Portsmouth is the most likely permanent base. However, that also means Portsmouth will receive a massive shipbuilding upgrade so the submarine and engine construction will move down to England as well.

Even then, Trident is budgeted at £3bn per year for 30 years from 2020-2050, some of it will be paid from sources outside of the regular defence budget (direct Treasury funding) and it will ensure we meet the 2% defence spending NATO target.

I don't think nuclear weapons are a necessity for warfare in the modern era, our enemies are scattered and fight guerilla campaigns and I find it highly unlikely we will enter a conventional war against Russia in the future. However, the expenditure is absolutely necessary to ensure Britain's overseas interests are protected by our continued presence on the UNSC as well as our veto. The loss of this would do irreparable damage to the nation.

So the question isn't whether we need Trident for war, it is pretty obvious we don't. The question is whether we want to maintain our global influence and for me £3bn per year is a pretty small price for the amount of influence our permanent UNSC seat and veto gives us.

As for why the French system is cheaper, they have a much bigger civilian nuclear programme which feeds directly into their weapons programme. Sourcing the plutonium and weapons grade uranium is much cheaper for them.

What I would say is there is no need for us to have 250 nukes and maintain such a high number of active missiles. Reducing that figure and continuing our commitment to the NPT would not only give us some moral high ground, but it would also make it less expensive.

I more or less agree with this. Retaining our UNSC is more or less the only persuasive reason to keep a nuclear deterrent, and it doesn't require us to keep a large one. If we cut down from 4 subs to 3, and reduce to around 160 warheads, then I'd consider it done and dusted.

 

[Goodlife]

To be fair, if by some bizarre reason Russia decided to nuke the UK, I very much doubt America would nuke Russia, regardless of what agreement is in place. It's not in America's interest, as they know they'd just get wiped out by Russia.

 

[Jackpot]

Because they've been happy to outsource their protection to another country. That's not something I'm keen on the UK doing (and, indeed, this may be an argument against Trident specifically but not nukes generally).

What enemy? I feel like I'm just having to repeat my previous points:

"I can't think of a single scenario where the threat is so existential that it requires a nuclear response instead of a conventional cruise missile yet so small that none of our allies would step up."

"What conflict did our nuclear weapons stop?"

Why is outsourcing a solution to some non-existent scenario not preferable?

We have nuclear weapons to maintain our veto on the UN security council which ensures our interests overseas are not left unprotected.

I disagree. That was the original criteria but it's not any longer. The diplomatic fallout of pushing us out would essentially be telling everyone to start their own nuke programmes if they want a say. Likewise, new nuclear powers aren't automatically given a seat.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Jackpot, I can't tell you what things didn't occur. No one can ever tell you what would have occured otherwise. Likewise, I can't tell you when you'd crashed if you never had changed your brake pads. That alone is not evidence of the fact that you would never crash, it just means I don't know when - or even if - you'd have crashed. And just like I'd keep changing my brake pads, I'll continue to support a nuclear weapons programme because - compared to almost all of history (which is as close to evidence as it's possible to get) - the period after the invention of them are their proliferation have been relatively more peaceful than those before it. That's really the best I can do.

Anyway, Quiche, here's something that might change your vote:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristo...fe-porn-star/story-26303054-detail/story.html

A UKIP candidate and senior party official works in his spare time as a porn star and adult movie mogul - the Bristol Post can reveal.

John Langley, who is standing as a councillor in the Stockwood constituency in the coming city council elections, is known in adult film circles as Johnny Rockard.

Mr Langley is also vice chair of the Bristol branch of the party and stood for election in the last council elections in Brislington.

The would-be councillor talks in his election material about his involvement in local health and social care services and transferring the balance of power from the "weighty autocratic hub of local government" to voters.

I wonder if the Bristol Post did their due diligence in confirming the veracity of these claims?

 

[Mr Git]

I'm not sure how viable nuclear deterrence is at all in the 21st Century. Trident just strikes me as Britain still pretending it's a superpower. Waste of money. If Russia or any other go-to nuclear villain wanted to nuke the UK, they could and trident would make no difference. I'm fairly certain nuclear war will never happen, (feel free to quote me for crow eating in WWIII) it's now purely rooted in the realm of fiction, although admittedly some of that fiction is excellent. The resources at least could be put to use in the armed forces, if you're concerned about defence. Those are actually used, instead of an expensive, nomadic, aquatic pseudo-threat. How many countries don't have nuclear weapons? And how many of those countries suffer regular nuclear attacks? Yep. Lots and none.

 

[crayman]

I'm not sure how viable nuclear deterrence is at all in the 21st Century. Trident just strikes me as Britain still pretending it's a superpower. Waste of money. If Russia or any other go-to nuclear villain wanted to nuke the UK, they could and trident would make no difference. I'm fairly certain nuclear war will never happen, (feel free to quote me for crow eating in WWIII) it's now purely rooted in the realm of fiction, although admittedly some of that fiction is excellent. The resources at least could be put to use in the armed forces, if you're concerned about defence. Those are actually used, instead of an expensive, nomadic, aquatic pseudo-threat. How many countries don't have nuclear weapons? And how many of those countries suffer regular nuclear attacks? Yep. Lots and none.

Why wouldn't trident make a difference? In this scenario - Trident would retaliate and do the same to Russia's population centres.

 

[Mr Git]

Why wouldn't trident make a difference? In this scenario - Trident would retaliate and do the same to Russia's population centres.

Because everyone would be already dead.

 

[crayman]

Because everyone would be already dead.

Yes - so Russia wouldn't ever do this as no-one benefits. The very existence of Trident prevents this from ever occuring. This is the point of a nuclear deterrence.

 

[Jackpot]

And just like I'd keep changing my brake pads, I'll continue to support a nuclear weapons programme because - compared to almost all of history (which is as close to evidence as it's possible to get) - the period after the invention of them are their proliferation have been relatively more peaceful than those before it.

But so many other first world countries surviving without nukes is plenty evidence against. As well as the wars our nukes failed to deter.

And shouldn't we have some evidence before we commit billions of pounds to something? Like any? You're acting like it's some extreme hypothetical but the whole cold war documents the specific effects nukes have had on individual situations. When in a dispute did us nodding towards are nukes see a drawdown in tensions? When did a power start ramping up the rhetoric towards others but bite its tongue when it got to us?

Also we do not exist in a vacuum. The fact that you can't think of a scenario where we're so in danger we need nukes but no allies would help us is because one doesn't exist. You "can't tell us" because there is no answer. Nukes are obsolete.

Why is this the "red line", but a solution to another ludicrous threat like spending billions on earthquake proofing buildings on the off-chance a big one reaches all the way here is crazy?

 

[DBT85]

Jackpot, I can't tell you what things didn't occur. No one can ever tell you what would have occured otherwise. Likewise, I can't tell you when you'd crashed if you never had changed your brake pads. That alone is not evidence of the fact that you would never crash, it just means I don't know when - or even if - you'd have crashed. And just like I'd keep changing my brake pads, I'll continue to support a nuclear weapons programme because - compared to almost all of history (which is as close to evidence as it's possible to get) - the period after the invention of them are their proliferation have been relatively more peaceful than those before it. That's really the best I can do.

But the global economy has also increased to an unprecedented level since the end of WWII, as has the birth rate, sales of ice cream and who knows what else.

Your attitude suggests that we can now never rid ourselves of nuclear arms because we've had them before.


As for the UNSC veto, I couldn't find anything that suggested that having a nuke kept us there and it certainly hasn't gotten India on the permanent roster since they got one. There are/were even plans to increase the permanent membership to 10 or more states, the extra mostly not having nukes at all, including Germany, Brazil, Japan etc.

Japan doesn't have any, but it has the ability to produce them and so is considered a nuclear state in every other repsect.

Yes - so Russia wouldn't ever do this as no-one benefits. The very existence of Trident prevents this from ever occuring. This is the point of a nuclear deterrence.

Are Russia dropping bombs on all the other countries that don't have them now then?

 

[CyclopsRock]

But so many other first world countries surviving without nukes is plenty evidence against. As well as the wars our nukes failed to deter.

No, it just means they don't need their own nukes because they live under the NATO umbrella. We don't need our own - I'm saying it's desirable because it (theoretically) offers us the ability to act independently (again, Trident aside).

And shouldn't we have some evidence before we commit billions of pounds to something? Like any? You're acting like it's some extreme hypothetical but the whole cold war documents the specific effects nukes have had on individual situations. When in a dispute did us nodding towards are nukes see a drawdown in tensions? When did a power start ramping up the rhetoric towards others but bite its tongue when it got to us?

Also we do not exist in a vacuum. The fact that you can't think of a scenario where we're so in danger we need nukes but no allies would help us is because one doesn't exist. You "can't tell us" because there is no answer. Nukes are obsolete.

Eh? I can think of plenty of entirely plausible scenarios, but you're asking me to say why, in 1980, did something not happen because of something invented in 1945. Your position seems to be that, because I can't tell you, it therefore means "nothing". Surely you see why that's an impossible request to answer in any context? I could ask you what the world would be like in 2015 if the television hadn't been invented. You could tell me all sorts of plausible outcomes, but you wouldn't have evidence for any of them because it didn't happen. You can't prove a negative.

Since I suspect you'll ask me, though, there's one obvious one: War between the USA and Russia during the cold war. Why not? Has there ever been two large powers vying for dominance that didn't result in war? This is the same decade in which the whole of Europe, North Africa and East Asia was embroiled in war twice (well, ok, Asia and NAfrica largely stayed out of WW1...). The prospect of our continent now going to war seems silly, but it obviously wasn't in the 60's. So why didn't the USA and Russia go to war in central Europe? They had all the gear they needed there, afterall - they'd never left from 1945! And it's not like they were trading with each other.

Why is this the "red line", but a solution to another ludicrous threat like spending billions on earthquake proofing buildings on the off-chance a big one reaches all the way here is crazy?

"Ludicrous threat"? I'm not suggesting there is a ludicrous threat - in fact, that's the whole point.

But the global economy has also increased to an unprecedented level since the end of WWII, as has the birth rate, sales of ice cream and who knows what else.

Your attitude suggests that we can now never rid ourselves of nuclear arms because we've had them before.

That is what I think. You can't un-invent them. If there are going to exist - and they are - I'd rather we had them than that we didn't.

 

[crayman]

Are Russia dropping bombs on all the other countries that don't have them now then?

Most of the countries Russia has beef with are in NATO - so do by all intents and purposes have nukes.

But maybe they wouldn't of invaded Ukraine if they still had the nukes they gave up in 1994.

 

[Jackpot]

War between the USA and Russia during the cold war. Why not?

But we're not the US. Why two superpowers on the cusp of all out war and constantly looking for ways to gain an edge over the other needed nuclear arsenals (along with biological and chemical ones) can be argued.

What exactly the UK's nuclear arsenal did in the conflict aside from painting some targets on us can't even be seen in history. That's why I've been emphasizing UK-centric examples and using Spain and Italy as comparisons.

We don't need our own - I'm saying it's desirable

£20 billion desirable? (and that was the figure from Blair's era. It'll have gone up)

 

[crayman]

But we're not the US. Why two superpowers on the cusp of all out war and constantly looking for ways to gain an edge over the other needed nuclear arsenals (along with biological and chemical ones) can be argued.

What exactly the UK's nuclear arsenal did in the conflict aside from painting some targets on us can't even be seen in history. That's why I've been emphasizing UK-centric examples and using Spain and Italy as comparisons.



£20 billion desirable? (and that was the figure from Blair's era. It'll have gone up)

Did a minor amount of googling - and found this page - https://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864

They think it costs about £2.4 billion a year. I don't know - might be a weird crank site.

But if it's true - compared to HS2 which is estimated to cost £43 billion - it doesn't seem that big a price to pay to me. I would be happy to see it replaced with something cheaper - as long as it was still 24/7 second-strike capable.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But we're not the US. Why two superpowers on the cusp of all out war and constantly looking for ways to gain an edge over the other needed nuclear arsenals (along with biological and chemical ones) can be argued.

What exactly the UK's nuclear arsenal did in the conflict aside from painting some targets on us can't even be seen in history. That's why I've been emphasizing UK-centric examples and using Spain and Italy as comparisons.

As has been said, they effectively did have nuclear weapons via NATO, and they were happy to outsource that to the US. I don't want us to do that. Again, my whole point is that I can't point to examples of things that never happened because they never happened. I literally can't provide you with the evidence you want, and we're going round in circles.

£20 billion desirable? (and that was the figure from Blair's era. It'll have gone up)

It is higher than that now, but it's over the space of 30-50 years. Even the highest estimates see it costing approximately £3bn a year, or approximately 7% of our defense budget.

 

[DBT85]

That is what I think. You can't un-invent them. If there are going to exist - and they are - I'd rather we had them than that we didn't.

And we can't be like Japan and just have the knowledge and technology and just use that? We can't be like Germany and just not have any at all? I'm just not understanding what having a nuke allows us to do on our own that we can't do without it, in the realms of what we are actually likely to do.

If we had no nukes, would it have stopped us going to the Falklands? Since it didn't stop Argentina invading they clearly felt we weren't going to start WW3 over a small island.

Would it have stopped us going in to Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere else?

We're not going to go an invade for a land grab, we're going to defend ourselves, our territories and our allies. We don't defend people with nukes, we defend them with guns, tanks, missiles, planes, carriers and economics.

We don't have biological weapons, we don't have chemical weapons, they exist too and are potentially owned by far more of the bad guys than nukes are.

If a resolution came in tomorrow that said all nukes have to be gone by 2020, what then? We'll just have to deter people with the same forces that we actually use to deter and fight people when they start getting a bit punchy, carriers, tanks, planes and other conventional forces.

Most of the countries Russia has beef with are in NATO - so do by all intents and purposes have nukes.

But maybe they wouldn't of invaded Ukraine if they still had the nukes they gave up in 1994.

You honestly think that the Ukraine would have launched a nuclear weapon against Russia once these troubles started? Genuinely honestly?

We are also in NATO, why can we not do the same as the others?