Trident - Should It Be Updated Or Not?

[Lonan3]

The question is a contentious one for many.

Does the UK really need to have its own 'nuclear deterrent?

Is the whole concept of it outdated by the end of the cold war?

If we abandon it can we rely, if necessary, on our allies to provide for us?

Will replacement be in breach of the non-proliferation treaty?

The debate is certainly generating a lot of heat in the UK as can be seen from THIS ARTICLE in today's Independent.

[Static]

Does the UK really need to have its own 'nuclear deterrent? NO

 

Is the whole concept of it outdated by the end of the cold war? YES - the issue then was the stand-off between the USA and USSR. There are currently no major powers with Nuclear weapons that appear to be a threat to us in particular (UK that is, not including USA in this).

 

If we abandon it can we rely, if necessary, on our allies to provide for us? NO, but then why would anyone want ot nuke us if we had no nukes? A bit simplistic I know. Actually we should be able to rely on the USA as our allies in NATO but we must then make sure that they have no nuclear warheads in the UK or that would make us a potential target.

 

Will replacement be in breach of the non-proliferation treaty? Don't know as I've not read the non-proliferation treaty.

 

Replacing Trident is a complete waste of money. £20 billion wasn't it? You could improve a hell of a lot of public servies with that kind of money.

[P.K.]

With the rise of China, North Korea and Iran I would prefer an independant deterrant i.e. one under OUR control to be used in OUR interests.

 

Unless, of course, it ends like the Suez debacle.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If the British attempt anything like Suez again they deserve any trouble that comes of it. Suez was stupid.

 

North Korea won't threaten anyone, let alone attack. It's nukes are just used as a bargaining chip to coerce the U.S. and Japan in continuing trade. Without the trade there would be mass starvation.

I cannot see how Iran would be a threat to Britain, just as much as I couldn't see Iraq being a threat if it had nuclear weapons.

Same with the Chinese.

 

All the countries with nuclear weapons have outdated strategies from the Cold War or those that come from supposed great power status.

 

Britain only has her nuclear deterrent because of great power status.

 

I don't think we should have an independent deterrent. Strategically it would not offer any significant advantages and more importantly Britain can hardly afford it. Britain already sends its beleaguered armed forces galavanting around the world on too many seas and in too many countries and there are constantly problems with equipments and weapons.

An independent deterrent is out of the question - far too expensive. Threats to British interests are being met with expeditionary forces and specialised methods are required for dealing with terrorists. Nuclear weapons just don't fit into the picture which is why I am so shocked at Labour continuing with the Trident program.

[Rog]

Not only should the UK have its own nuclear weaponry more to the point it should have already been used on more than one occasion in the past.

 

I am certain that the knowledge that a nation WILL use nuclear weapons is now needed,

 

The simple possession of them is insufficient, and the concept of MAD preventing outbreak of a nuclear exchange doesn’t apply when your enemy absolutely believes that if he or his are killed in a jihad they are on an express passage to eternal paradise.

 

Personally I would have pressed the button on Argentina, on Iraq, and certainly by now on Iran and Afghanistan without a moments hesitation.

 

There is nothing particularly different about killing a few thousand with a nuclear missile and a few thousand by conventional arms beyond efficiency. Britain has the capacity to sterilize whole areas such as Afghanistan yet fails to do so instead sending in more and more young men to be minced by savages.

 

Having the means to eliminate the problem at hand yet letting our own young people be killed and injured and not using the alternative that will get the job done without the young of our nation being so damaged is disgusting.

 

Once again, not a troll, an absolutely genuine opinion.

[Millman]

We haven't used the nuclear missiles we have yet so it seems a bit rich to want more.

 

In order to use them up I suggest the following Targets:

 

Swindon

Slough

Jurby

Heysham

France

The Big brother house (and Emdamol's headquarters)

Evil dictators Mugabe, Bush and Blair

Gary Glitter

and Jamie Oliver

 

Once these have been nuked and we have bought our new missiles I should be consulted for a new list.

[Chinahand]

So now we know Rog is in favour of the mass killing of civillians.

 

Nuclear weapons during the Falklands - interesting one Rog - where do you think a kilotonne device would have been useful during that little local difficulty? If you'd dropped one on Tumbledown the result would be to melt Stanley. Liberating a nuclear waste land - very good.

[Lonan3]

Not only should the UK have its own nuclear weaponry more to the point it should have already been used on more than one occasion in the past.

 

I am certain that the knowledge that a nation WILL use nuclear weapons is now needed,

 

The simple possession of them is insufficient, and the concept of MAD preventing outbreak of a nuclear exchange doesn’t apply when your enemy absolutely believes that if he or his are killed in a jihad they are on an express passage to eternal paradise.

 

Personally I would have pressed the button on Argentina, on Iraq, and certainly by now on Iran and Afghanistan without a moments hesitation.

 

There is nothing particularly different about killing a few thousand with a nuclear missile and a few thousand by conventional arms beyond efficiency. Britain has the capacity to sterilize whole areas such as Afghanistan yet fails to do so instead sending in more and more young men to be minced by savages.

 

Having the means to eliminate the problem at hand yet letting our own young people be killed and injured and not using the alternative that will get the job done without the young of our nation being so damaged is disgusting.

 

Once again, not a troll, an absolutely genuine opinion.

 

I think you should stand for election to parliament.

 

I'm just not quite sure whose parliament!

[Pat Ayres]

Firstly, Rog is a troll, rather a collective troll. 'He' is really a group of youngsters having a laugh at our expense, don't give them the oxygen of publicity..

Secondly, If you are not a target why should people take shots at you? very simplistic but worth the thought.

Trident is outdated, it is being, at this very moment, updated with new electronics that allow it to be targeted better, the effect and 'efficiency' being adjusted in flight. Good stuff eh? Problem is, the electronics are American, where is the independance now?

Please tell me of an instance when possession of a 'nuclear deterrent' has stopped any group attacking the UK or its' forces.

How do you expect the likes of Iraq or Iran to develop nuclear weapons without the aid of nations already employing such technology? It's ludicrous and scare mongering in it's stupidity.

The money to be wasted on this experiment in international bullying would be better spent on social issues, but I know it will be used in defence somewhere to protect the jobs the weapons industry brings to deprived areas of Uk. That in itself is a form of social control so beloved of the previous government of Britain and perpetuated by this one.

If you look at the argument for a moment, trident needs updating according to the tories, which means it is out of date and therefore no longer efficient or effective for purpose. Have we been attacked by hordes of Chinese flying over the horizon and invading? Of course not. The means of delivery, 4 old submarines, are so out of date as to be useless. Two broke down the other year and left the Uk without cover for a fairly long time. Did civilisation crumble?

I hope Parliament does the honourable thing and reject the idea out of hand, I know they won't and the tories will support the other tories and accept the need for it. There are some headliners that will resign on 'principle', they habe no more principles than Bush, there's a buck to be made and they will go for it. (Try googling their fees for after dinner speaking and see the differrence between this week and last.)

Enough for now, let debate continue.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Having the means to eliminate the problem at hand yet letting our own young people be killed and injured and not using the alternative that will get the job done without the young of our nation being so damaged is disgusting.

 

Of course your only joking but I honestly don't feel much affinity to these British troops.

They are in the armed forces for reasons I do not believe in and are fighting in pointless wars for the wrong reasons. They need to be pulled out so no more lives are lost. I do realise that they get no choice in where they are posted.

I wish Britain would show a little more economy in its foreign policy.

 

Maybe all these nuclear weapons should be passed to Switzerland or Sweden and let them be the arbiters for sticky situations.

 

I can't see how the world would not be a better place if all countries actively sought to eradicate their nuclear weapons. It would require a great deal of trust but it mst be worth giving a go.

[Rog]

Firstly, Rog is a troll, rather a collective troll. 'He' is really a group of youngsters having a laugh at our expense, don't give them the oxygen of publicity..

 

No, skrappy, I’m not a troll.

 

Just because someone has an opinion that you do not agree with or that you find offensive and controversial or, as is more often the case you don’t understand from not having thought through what is involved, doesn’t make them a troll.

 

 

Nor am I joking. And civilians always get killed in war.

 

War is nothing more than the extension of mans competitive nature, that same nature that has let us evolve into being the top predator, the top of the food chain. It is nasty, dirty, and a part of the human condition that is unfortunate but necessary. That being so, and it is, then any and all means to wage a successful war should be employed.

 

Take The Cold War between Capitalism and Communism.

 

Consider the place of nuclear weaponry in that war. It was the knowledge that the use of nuclear weapons by either side would result in massive and overwhelming retaliation by the other that kept the Cold War cold because in any conflict one side must see the opportunity to win or at least to loose without utter decimation.

 

In the end the Cold War was won by a combination of war-by-proxy wherein both sides used third party countries to do the fighting, and finally by financial attrition and the myth of ‘the Star Wars’ program, a myth that the Russians believed and couldn’t respond to and so gave in.

 

Today we face a different threat from the war based on political ideology, we face a threat from an ideology totally alien to our Western civilisation and values of freedom.

 

A threat from an enemy for whom his utter decimation is NOT loss, as for our enemy today total decimation is victory because in his absolute belief those killed go straight to paradise.

 

In fact for them total devastation is a better victory than defeating us.

 

Today we face an enemy who still doesn’t have the means to respond in kind if we use nuclear weapons --- yet. But they very soon will and make no mistake, they will have not one moments hesitation in making use of them.

 

Today we are sending our troops into battle inadequately equipped to do an impossible job. Not just inadequately equipped resources wise but also with a different mind set.

 

We love life, the enemy loves death as has been pointed out time and time again by our enemies and has as its source the Battle of Qadisiyya in 636, when the commander of the muslim forces, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, sent an emissary with a message from Caliph Abu Bakr to the Persian commander.

 

The message stated: ‘You should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life. ‘

 

Should there be a Trident Mk2? Absolutely.

 

What’s more we should right now be converting most of our nuclear arsenal to low yield battlefield weapons to enable our forces to have the right tools to do what must be done sooner or later, and what actually should have started years ago.

 

Then there is the question of civilians.

 

Are there any civilians in a nation that has goner to war? Or are there instead simply those who are not actually engaged in the fighting.

 

I say the latter. It is in my opinion wrong to deliberately target those who are not engaged in fighting but at the same time if civilians get killed or injured as a result of collateral damage, so be it.

 

As for the Falklands invasion, nuke the Falklands? No, nuke the Argentinean armed forces wherever they may have been. And in any case the damage from a tactical nuclear device of around 250 tons to 1 kiloton yield is by no means the widespread devastation weapon that so many people think it is.

 

Even the 25 kiloton weapon used against Japan only cause minor damage at the three mile radius from the detonation point.

 

No one wants war but at the same time sometimes war is the inevitable result when incompatible ideologies clash. We must not tie our hands or be unwilling to use whatever will result in victory.

 

You don’t come second in war, you win or you loose. I don’t want to ever be on the loosing side.

[Lonan3]

A few questions:

 

How many of the 26 NATO countries have 'independent' nuclear weapons capability?

 

By insisting on having something like Trident, aren't we merely trying to maintain the last crumbling vestiges of our status as a world power? Isn't it, in reality, more about the perception of grandeur than about effectiveness?

 

How long will it be before the submarines that carry them have to be replaced - and at what cost?

 

The sum involved in the Trident update is £65billion (that's the current estimate although there's little doubt that it will rise before the process is completed), yet our troops on the ground - the ones who have to do the real fighting - are often deprived of the necessary equipment to do so. How far would a sum such as £65billion go towards properly equiping our servicemen - and wouldn't it be better spent on producing a thoroughly professional and well-equipped force rather than being wasted on a device that will probably never be used?

[Rog]

Trident is special in that it represents the ultimate hidden silo and moreover one that can be moved into the proximity of a theatre of war. The REAL issue is one of strategic vs tactical nuke.

 

If we moved away from strategic warheads and into numerically far more tactical warheads then not only would the use of nuclear weapons become far more feasible and acceptable in that they would be more selective in a battlefield or battle zone situation, but would significantly reduce the need to do by weight of manpower what could be achieved quicker and easier as a result of the neutralisation of a nations armed forces.

 

Overall the cost per kill (CPK) would be far less by the use of tactical low yield nuclear devices than the present CPK using conventional arms and manpower.

 

We can’t ban nuclear weapons, it’s stupid to even think it could be done, so we might as well update the weapon to a form that it will be best use, no longer as a device assuring MAD, but now a weapon that can and moreover SHOULD be used.

[Chinahand]

I am not sure about the UK's independent nuclear deterent. My gut feeling is that I'm in favour.

 

Rog seems to be obsessed with tactical nukes and using them at every opportunity. I'm the opposite - these are weapons of last resort for use in existential struggles. Will the UK be involved in any such struggles over the next 30 years - who knows. Will Taiwan, Israel, the Baltic Republics, Kuwait etc. If the UK or our allies and partners are threatenned with Tyranny I think we have a duty to stand up against this tyranny.

 

My feeling is that Nuclear weapons do deter countries from abusing their power - and so makes wars less likely. Though I also am aware that the bomb may give a country a feeling of untouchability which increases its tendency to trouble make - it is a complex trade off - spats between China and the USSR and India and Pakistan are interesting in this regard.

 

Cost wise I think its a red herring: this Guardian report has some figures: total cost over 30 years £76 billion - proportion of the defence budget 5.5%. That's £42 per person per year over 30 years. The additional force projection and status it provides us verses its cost seems a no brainer to me.

 

Crumbling vestigates of "our" [thought you were a proud manxman Lonan3!] status as a world power - interesting. The UK is a small country, we've found that trade and openness have provided us great wealth - there was some stealing along the way, but far more building - as a result we are far more at risk from external shocks than the huge continental countries that have made the world's history in the last century and which will make it in this.

 

The US hasn't been a great ally and could go isolationist - I'm in favour of an internationalist foreign policy and maintaining independence of action.

 

But non proliferation is the issue of the century. If countries feel they are threatened they will seek deterence - Sweden is unlikely to restart its nuclear program, but how to stop Iran and Saudi deciding they need the bomb. A hard one, but far more connected with regional instability than the UK maintaining its capablilty.

[Chinahand]

Quickly replying to Rog - if nuclear weapons become common place items in inventories and use - then their special status will be undermined and everyone will develop them.

 

The current system is that they are uniquely special weapons - if you can make a 1 KT weapon - a specialized and difficult job - you can make a 10 megatonne one. Owning a 10 megatonne device gives you the power to kill many millions of people. If you are xenophobic or messianic what the heck use it.

 

Non-proliferation and insisting these weapons are uniquely dangerous is vital in the next century - or they will be used and in every increasing yield.

 

I'd have thought you'd have understood this - Israel was a nuclear power during Yom Kippur - it understood the existential threat hadn't been reached and held back - must have been a tense few days at strategic command.