Trident - Waste Of Money

[Flaxbourton Red]

this trident business estimated to cost 75billion pounds over the next 25 years - what a waste of money

what is the point of having an independent nuclear capability when we are part of NATO, its not as if we are going to act independently of the USA, the last time we did that (Suez) we were a miserable failure. why not just let the USA get on with it?

they're no use in iraq or afghanistan

we're not going to use them without the USA's agreement

I say we get rid and spend the money on making britain better

[Guest MaloneFM]

Spot on son.

[Mr Mosquito]

what is the point of having an independent nuclear capability when we are part of NATO, its not as if we are going to act independently of the USA, the last time we did that (Suez) we were a miserable failure. why not just let the USA get on with it?

Also, the last time the USA acted independently without us (Vietnam) they were a miserable failure.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Also, the last time the USA acted independently without us (Vietnam) they were a miserable failure.

wrong

off the top of my head, grenada

anyway back to trident...

[Mr Mosquito]

wrong

off the top of my head, grenada

anyway back to trident...

Grenada was a conflict absolutely no where near the magnitude of Vietnam. As for Trident, no way should we buy the missiles when there's a risk that the keys will fall into the hands of the European Union.

[Nibor]

Having a nuclear deterrent is a very significant defence asset. It is easy in peace time to become complacent but things will not always be this way. That deterrent has a strategic affect that is immeasurable in terms of protecting our sovereignty. It is unlikely that this nation will ever be threatened like it was during the second world war whilst we maintain that kind of capability.

Another point, however unpalatable it might be, is that having that capability puts Britain around the table with the most powerful nations in the world. Power like that helps us make trade deals and influence other nations.

Cost wise, £75bn is not very much over 25 years, £3bn a year is less than half of one percent of our GDP and less than 3% of what we spend on the NHS. Providing the same deterrent or capability in conventional weapons would cost significantly more.

Finally, the research that is partially funded by defence spending like this often spins off technologies that are massively beneficial to the public in far more mundane ways. Where do you think the internet came from?

[Nibor]

Grenada was a conflict absolutely no where near the magnitude of Vietnam. As for Trident, no way should we buy the missiles when there's a risk that the keys will fall into the hands of the European Union.

You've already got plenty of threads to moan about the EU on, this one doesn't need to go down that road does it ?

[Flaxbourton Red]

Having a nuclear deterrent is a very significant defence asset. It is easy in peace time to become complacent but things will not always be this way. That deterrent has a strategic affect that is immeasurable in terms of protecting our sovereignty. It is unlikely that this nation will ever be threatened like it was during the second world war whilst we maintain that kind of capability.

Another point, however unpalatable it might be, is that having that capability puts Britain around the table with the most powerful nations in the world. Power like that helps us make trade deals and influence other nations.

Cost wise, £75bn is not very much over 25 years, £3bn a year is less than half of one percent of our GDP and less than 3% of what we spend on the NHS. Providing the same deterrent or capability in conventional weapons would cost significantly more.

Finally, the research that is partially funded by defence spending like this often spins off technologies that are massively beneficial to the public in far more mundane ways. Where do you think the internet came from?

how many nuclear weapons do Germany and Japan have?

[Nibor]

how many nuclear weapons do Germany and Japan have?

Not really the best argument there, after all those are the two countries that basically caused the rest of the world to develop nuclear weapons.

How many lives did nuclear weapons save when the stopped Japan from perpetuating the war in the Pacific for another year?

Do you think China would have suffered the loss of 20 million lives at the hands of Japan if they had had nuclear weapons in 1939?

[Flaxbourton Red]

Not really the best argument there, after all those are the two countries that basically caused the rest of the world to develop nuclear weapons.

How many lives did nuclear weapons save when the stopped Japan from perpetuating the war in the Pacific for another year?

Do you think China would have suffered the loss of 20 million lives at the hands of Japan if they had had nuclear weapons in 1939?

i disagree their developed economies suggests that you don't need to waste money on nuclear weapons, same could be said for the scandinavian countries

as for china and japan I did not call for the USA to give up its weapons, just us - a rather small country that has delusions of grandeur and thinks its some sort of superpower - even though it's running out of money and its jobs are heading to india and china

[Nibor]

i disagree their developed economies suggests that you don't need to waste money on nuclear weapons, same could be said for the scandinavian countries

as for china and japan I did not call for the USA to give up its weapons, just us - a rather small country that has delusions of grandeur and thinks its some sort of superpower - even though it's running out of money and its jobs are heading to india and china

Well I've pointed out several good reasons why that's a silly idea and you haven't really countered those points, instead just chucked up the names of two countries who we all know will never be allowed nuclear weapons for historical reasons.

I can tell you this, if Germany and Japan were allowed nukes they would have them same as all the other rich nations.

India and China do too by the way - our economy is indeed under threat from those two just like everyone else's is - should we really not spend less than 0.5% of our GDP on a capability that guarantees us a seat at the same table as them on the only UN council that carries any weight?

Shelving nukes is a nice simplistic eco friendly peace loving rallying point that in practical world politics makes no sense whatsoever.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Well I've pointed out several good reasons why that's a silly idea and you haven't really countered those points, instead just chucked up the names of two countries who we all know will never be allowed nuclear weapons for historical reasons.

I can tell you this, if Germany and Japan were allowed nukes they would have them same as all the other rich nations.

India and China do too by the way - our economy is indeed under threat from those two just like everyone else's is - should we really not spend less than 0.5% of our GDP on a capability that guarantees us a seat at the same table as them on the only UN council that carries any weight?

Shelving nukes is a nice simplistic eco friendly peace loving rallying point that in practical world politics makes no sense whatsoever.

do you want the names of more countries that are successful without nuclear weapons - judge a countries success on quality of life

don't see any countries with nukes in the top 12

as for the UN security council - I doubt not renewing trident would result in the UN punishing us by taking our permanent seat away - what a terrible way to support the UN's non-proliferation treaty.

we don't nuclear weapons - we are part of NATO

let's invest the money on our ailing railways instead - that will help our economy more than the vanity of holding weapons we don't need.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Having a nuclear deterrent is a very significant defence asset. It is easy in peace time to become complacent but things will not always be this way. That deterrent has a strategic affect that is immeasurable in terms of protecting our sovereignty. It is unlikely that this nation will ever be threatened like it was during the second world war whilst we maintain that kind of capability.

NATO has successfully stopped soviet pact aggression - trident didn't stop argentina invading the falklands

Another point, however unpalatable it might be, is that having that capability puts Britain around the table with the most powerful nations in the world. Power like that helps us make trade deals and influence other nations.

Having nuclear weapons does not make us more attractive to trade with - competition and the free market is driven by self-interest that means trade is attracted by value for money, price, stability and trustworthiness of a country. .

Cost wise, £75bn is not very much over 25 years, £3bn a year is less than half of one percent of our GDP and less than 3% of what we spend on the NHS. Providing the same deterrent or capability in conventional weapons would cost significantly more.

£75 billion is a ridiculous amount of taxpayers money to waste

Finally, the research that is partially funded by defence spending like this often spins off technologies that are massively beneficial to the public in far more mundane ways. Where do you think the internet came from?

put the money directly into research - surely that will be more productive than this trickle down theory?

[CiderHider]

Its a tough debate and I have mixed feelings because I think in any instance that we ever use them is just wrong.......Unless its in response to someone nuking us.

The whole moral thing gets me, it would be great to say "We Great Britain will be nuclear free!" Yey, Then end up getting nuked, I don't wanna die like that.

Its up to my country to protect me, Nukes offer me protection.

Until we can all decide to ban nukes then we need them without debate, there is no ****** way we should let Russia have them and we don't, that would be suicide!

Whatever the cost we must renew trident.

[Percy Parrot]

I'm split on this.

On the one hand it's a pretty ineffective, never used, pointless part of our military that doesn't go anywhere near protecting us from today's challenges.

On the other I have that nagging doubt in the back of my mind where I quite like the idea that we have them just in case.

I think on the balance it's just too expensive to justify but I'm not convinced either way.

[Nibor]

do you want the names of more countries that are successful without nuclear weapons - judge a countries success on quality of life

don't see any countries with nukes in the top 12

How does having or not having nukes affect quality of life? It doesn't, it just affects your strategic safety.

as for the UN security council - I doubt not renewing trident would result in the UN punishing us by taking our permanent seat away - what a terrible way to support the UN's non-proliferation treaty.

we don't nuclear weapons - we are part of NATO

Military strength is a very big part of the equation at that level and nukes are a very cheap way of providing a whole lot of it.

Relying on NATO to bail us out just makes us even more a bunch of lapdogs for the USA and whilst that nation is capable of electing neo con ultra christian imbeciles like GWB that is not something anybody should be comfortable with.

I believe that Britain needs to continue to stand on it's own two feet militarily and nukes play a big part in that. It's not about using them, it's about the strategic effect of having them. Trident's design is based around a delivery system that puts our retaliation capability beyond reach (since it's sub based) as a very strong deterrent to a WoMD attack on the UK's sovereignty. There is no other option for achieving that strategic effect.

let's invest the money on our ailing railways instead - that will help our economy more than the vanity of holding weapons we don't need.

We already spend several times the amount annually on railways that you think Trident will cost.

NATO has successfully stopped soviet pact aggression - trident didn't stop argentina invading the falklands

Trident is a nuclear weapons programme not a time machine, it can't prevent an event that occurred 12 years before it went into service....

Having nuclear weapons does not make us more attractive to trade with - competition and the free market is driven by self-interest that means trade is attracted by value for money, price, stability and trustworthiness of a country. .

Military power is a constituent of a country's political influence and that has a big effect on trade. And where do you think the money spent on Trident actually goes? We spend some of it abroad and in turn we get trade concessions.

£75 billion is a ridiculous amount of taxpayers money to waste

No it isn't, it is a relatively tiny amount of money. £3bn a year out of a total government spend of currently £631bn. Less than half a percent.

put the money directly into research - surely that will be more productive than this trickle down theory?

Possibly, but actually to have the same level of ability to protect ourselves we would have to spend far more to avoid maintaining nukes.

I think wanting rid of nukes is a worthy long term ideal, but expecting us to just drop the capability now is very naive.

[Flaxbourton Red]

How does having or not having nukes affect quality of life? It doesn't, it just affects your strategic safety.

you based part of your arguement on retaining trident as a contributor to our economic success - I'm arguing it doesn't and has no effect on quality of life -except wasting taxpayers money - this part of my arguement against trident. Successful countries don't need nuclear weapons

Military strength is a very big part of the equation at that level and nukes are a very cheap way of providing a whole lot of it.

Relying on NATO to bail us out just makes us even more a bunch of lapdogs for the USA and whilst that nation is capable of electing neo con ultra christian imbeciles like GWB that is not something anybody should be comfortable with.

This is a silly comment and you know it. NATO is a post-war success story. Members of NATO that don't have nuclear weapons are not lapdogs of the US. GWB has gone - Obama wants to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons.

I believe that Britain needs to continue to stand on it's own two feet militarily and nukes play a big part in that. It's not about using them, it's about the strategic effect of having them. Trident's design is based around a delivery system that puts our retaliation capability beyond reach (since it's sub based) as a very strong deterrent to a WoMD attack on the UK's sovereignty. There is no other option for achieving that strategic effect.

Stand on its own two feet like it did in suez? You're living in the past , we're not a superpower anymore. Who is going to use WoMD on us? and why are they not put off by the stratigic safety of NATO?

We already spend several times the amount annually on railways that you think Trident will cost.

we need to spend more - and axe trident as a way of financing it.

Trident is a nuclear weapons programme not a time machine, it can't prevent an event that occurred 12 years before it went into service....

No it can't, neither did polaris...

Military power is a constituent of a country's political influence and that has a big effect on trade. And where do you think the money spent on Trident actually goes? We spend some of it abroad and in turn we get trade concessions.

rather my tax went on something positive rather than american made trident missiles

No it isn't, it is a relatively tiny amount of money. £3bn a year out of a total government spend of currently £631bn. Less than half a percent.

We will have to agree to differ, although you are belittling £75 billion pounds of taxpayers money, which rather weakens your arguement.

Possibly, but actually to have the same level of ability to protect ourselves we would have to spend far more to avoid maintaining nukes.

Again, we are part of NATO, we don't all need nuclear weapons.

I think wanting rid of nukes is a worthy long term ideal, but expecting us to just drop the capability now is very naive.

Its's naive and vain to replace trident, we don't need it and we won't use it.

[Nibor]

I think you're seriously under estimating the role nuclear weapons play in our strategic security and our country's influence and I also think your suggestion of dropping that capability is over reliant on the rest of the world remaining sane which history tells us is not a good thing to count on. I disagree with you and I'll leave it at that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm not sure about this one- given the soon to be massive national debt we will have, £75billion is a lot of money.

Also as pointed out by others, we aren't a true world power these days- Britannia rules the Waves no more.

And as well as Germany and Japan, other nations to be fine in terms of avoiding invasion without nuclear weapons include places as diverse as Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and others besides.

Perhaps in the eyes of some it is about ego, trying to maintain a status as a major power in the world as well as latching onto certain wars with America and one or two other allies?