Trident

[Alan H]

Trident’s a billion-pound codpiece to hide our total emasculation

Do we need Trident? Should the money be spent elsewhere?

[animist]

it is hard to believe that this forum has taken so long to address the stupidity of Trident. Of course we do not need it, and this has little or nothing to do with codpieces or emasculation. We were visibly emasculated as long ago as Suez (1956) and that is 60 years ago. Trident must be the last vestige of British stupidity and arrogance - but of course it is not, since reading the comments about anything to do with the EU referendum reveals a vitriolically chauvinistic island entity which still seems to think it has independent power and validity

[Alan C.]

We already have Trident, does it have a 'use by date?'
Keep it by all means, re-locate it to the Thames or pay the Scottish government ££££££££££££££££££ in rent.

[jaywhat]

Do we have to keep it because USA says so ?

[animist]

Do we have to keep it because USA says so ?

I don't think that the UK's "independent" deterrent was ever forced on it by the US, and in fact the Cold War fear was that Britain/Europe might by invaded by the USSR and the Americans be too frightened of retaliation to use their own nuclear deterrent; Britain therefore needed to be able to threaten the Russians with its own nuclear response

[Alan H]

Time for this:

[jaywhat]

Do we have to keep it because USA says so ?

I don't think that the UK's "independent" deterrent was ever forced on it by the US, and in fact the Cold War fear was that Britain/Europe might by invaded by the USSR and the Americans be too frightened of retaliation to use their own nuclear deterrent; Britain therefore needed to be able to threaten the Russians with its own nuclear response

Not 'forced' but certainly 'encouraged'.

[animist]

Do we have to keep it because USA says so ?

I don't think that the UK's "independent" deterrent was ever forced on it by the US, and in fact the Cold War fear was that Britain/Europe might by invaded by the USSR and the Americans be too frightened of retaliation to use their own nuclear deterrent; Britain therefore needed to be able to threaten the Russians with its own nuclear response

Not 'forced' but certainly 'encouraged'.

maybe so. I can't really comment since the near-uniform blab of most MPs of all parties seems to be that failing to keep Trident, or some replacement, is necessary for UK security, and I just fail to understand this. There are many reasons to stay in the EU, but one that seldom gets mentioned is the need for a unified defence force, nuclear or otherwise - why the hell did the EU try out monetary union before trying to establish collective defence against a potential aggressor (eg Vlad Putin, who is more likely to be deterred by a united Europe than by separate defences like those of the British and French)?

[Alan H]

I for one am pleased the world is now a safer place to live because North Korea has developed its own nuclear deterrent.

[jaywhat]

[Nick]

What we should do, is to build new subs, for billions of pounds, and send them to see with no weapons aboard. That would be a really good policy.....

[Nick]

We already have Trident, does it have a 'use by date?'
Keep it by all means, re-locate it to the Thames or pay the Scottish government ££££££££££££££££££ in rent.

We already do.

[animist]

I for one am pleased the world is now a safer place to live because North Korea has developed its own nuclear deterrent.

you may be right, Alan, but think this needs more explanation given the unpredictability of North Korea. I think this dreadful state's potency is a not so much a deterrent as a potential gamestarter

[Alan H]

I for one am pleased the world is now a safer place to live because North Korea has developed its own nuclear deterrent.

you may be right, Alan, but think this needs more explanation given the unpredictability of North Korea. I think this dreadful state's potency is a not so much a deterrent as a potential gamestarter

So, is it down to how likely it is that a country with a nuclear deterrent will actually use it (whether for attack or defence)? I refer you to the Yes Minister sketch...

[animist]

I for one am pleased the world is now a safer place to live because North Korea has developed its own nuclear deterrent.

you may be right, Alan, but think this needs more explanation given the unpredictability of North Korea. I think this dreadful state's potency is a not so much a deterrent as a potential gamestarter

So, is it down to how likely it is that a country with a nuclear deterrent will actually use it (whether for attack or defence)? I refer you to the Yes Minister sketch...

sorry, Alan, but I would like a direct reply on such an important topic. I doubt that N Korea has ministers in the way that we do

[Nick]

Errr... Wasn't Alan C being ironic....?

[animist]

Errr... Wasn't Alan C being ironic....?

er, if you mean Alan H, then yes indeed. The fact that I took it seriously is a bit worrying....

[animist]

What we should do, is to build new subs, for billions of pounds, and send them to see with no weapons aboard. That would be a really good policy.....

yes but shhh, the other lot might hear

[Alan H]

Errr... Wasn't Alan C being ironic....?

er, if you mean Alan H, then yes indeed. The fact that I took it seriously is a bit worrying....

But it does highlight the issues: we have a nuclear 'deterrent'; they have nuclear 'weapons'. We have them to deter others (who also have them) from using theirs against us; they have them... for what purpose? Because we have them? We have them but would only use them as a last resort (see above video); they would only use them... when? And even if they used them, would we?

[Nick]

Errr... Wasn't Alan C being ironic....?

er, if you mean Alan H, then yes indeed. The fact that I took it seriously is a bit worrying....

Looks like I had a senior moment with initials, so you're forgiven too. ;)