Nuclear deterrent?

[Roger Chatfield 0]

Afternoon chums,

 

One of the subjects that has been bought up by the Scottish independence vote is Trident, an independent Scotland has said it doesn't need or want it.

 

This has got me thinking, why do we actually have it? Now that the Cold War has finished is there really any point in spending vast sums of money on a weapon we are never going to use.

 

Let's face fact here, we are never going to use a nuclear weapon against an aggressor, it just won't happen and tbh it's unlikely that someone is going to use one against us.

 

Most of the other counties on this fine earth don't have the 'bomb' and they are getting on fine so maybe it's time we got rid of it.

 

Discuss...

 

Rog.

[Sean_Jaymo 0]

Keyword: Deterrent.

 

Like it or not, there are people who may in the not so close future who may feel the need to threaten the UK, it's allies and it's sovereign terroritry.

 

We rarely go into a war which requires tanks but we still have those. These days it's armoured guns on tracked vehicles and not tanks. We have aircraft and ships that can fulfill the tank role but we still have them.

 

You also can't say it's fact that we will never use nuclear weapons. It's impossible to say that. Unlikely to use, I agree but you never ever know what the future brings. After all we were allies with Russia not more than 15 years prior to the cold war.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Sean_Jaymo

[Wullie 1]

Nuclear weapons are an aberration and self defeating. If they are ever used then basically that's it - end of story. We have them so we can say we are a nuclear power and are just a launch base for NATO and the USA. They're a bit like owning a Lamborghini on an island with no roads, expensive to maintain and nowhere to use it. Great movie set in Sheffield from a few years ago paints a pretty grim and accurate picture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUYCnzmDJY

[Sean_Jaymo 0]

Lamborghini with no roads, have you seen how many supercars Jersey has with a 30mph limit? Lol :-)

[coullstar 0]

I see the point of having them. Its a necessary evil. Regarding the scottish thing I dont see the point in moving them a few hundred miles from safety point of view. It sounds more like a moral decision which is fine but there a lot of heartache just for a moral point of view.

 

What they could do is charge the rest of the UK for housing them and still have the bases. It keep jobs there and an extra source of income but the SNP have set thier stance that they must go within 4 years.

 

The issue here is that if they are to be moved there may be no proper place to house them which could result in the UK eventually giving them up and thus coming out of the nuclear alliance. That would result in a lot of lost politcal power.

 

As said before the way to look at them is like any other armament, they are to be used but as a last resort and you use them as part of that negotiation to aviod using them. If that makes sense.

[seanl82 23]

The film linked above if anyones ever seen it paints a pretty accurate picture imo of what it'd be like after a nuclear holocaust, if a little over the top at the end. As said though, it's a political tool rather than a usable weapon these days. We don't need nuclear weapons anymore, but the deterrent is still valid. The V boats could be quite easily moved to Plymouth. HM naval Base Devonport already has the facilities, and carries out major refits of all classes of our Nuclear Submarine Fleet. To that end, I think it's a non issue. If Scotland don't want it, fine. Loose thousands of jobs and relocate or create them in Plymouth. Simple.

Edited September 12, 2014 by seanl82

[coullstar 0]

What about the storage facility at Coolport though? That's not an easy fix.

[feeenix14 10]

If there isn't a nuclear threat anymore then there will be no more James Bond films !! What will Daniel Craig do !?! Sprint into a room have a quick glance at a map, shrug and say "the army can handle that . . . I'll get my coat" there will be no more end of the world scenarios that require him to sprint everywhere and take his top off on a tropical beach !! And no more conversations i have to have with the Mrs when she says she thinks he makes a good Bond and i say its only because of his body, to which she replies "no, i genuinely think he is a good James Bond". Pipe down woman !! He has the face of a melted waxwork. Look at his pecs. Look at em !!

 

I got sidetracked, in all seriousness political negotiation is always centred on power. Nuclear deterrent = power. We need em.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Keyword: Deterrent.

 

Like it or not, there are people who may in the not so close future who may feel the need to threaten the UK, it's allies and it's sovereign terroritry.

 

We rarely go into a war which requires tanks but we still have those. These days it's armoured guns on tracked vehicles and not tanks. We have aircraft and ships that can fulfill the tank role but we still have them.

 

You also can't say it's fact that we will never use nuclear weapons. It's impossible to say that. Unlikely to use, I agree but you never ever know what the future brings. After all we were allies with Russia not more than 15 years prior to the cold war.

 

+1

 

I always remember the quote from the Japanese General in the movie, Pearl Harbour, after the Japs bombed it: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant". A deterrent is exactly the point of having these uber weapons. At school, there was always a kid who every other kid was afraid of, because they knew what he was capable of. Adult life is no different. The IS extremists are the little kids poking the big bear with sticks, try to get a reaction from it.

 

Humans never learn. Just like Hiroshima, it will take a Nuke to shut these cretins up.

[vornwend 0]

Utterly obscene waste of money that would be far better spent elsewhere (health, education, infrastructure etc). UK living in the past, trying to pretend its a major world power, its not any more. We would never use them and no one will use them against us. The fact that other allies have them is deterrent enough if you believe in that logic. Germany doesn't have them Japan doesn't have them, Canada, Brazil, Australia - are they worried, have they ever been threatened by a nuclear power? - no of course not. In fact possession might actually increase the chances of being hit in a future world where nuclear war broke out. Influence in today's world is mostly driven by economic power. Invasions of first world countries happen by stealth these days not by invading armies - look at how the Chinese are quietly buying up large chunks of other countries economies.

[Roger Chatfield 0]

Mmmmm deterrent... I'm not so sure any more, didn't exactly deter the Argies from invading the Falklands did it.

Everyone knows that no one will push the button so it's not exactly a deterrent any more, don't forget trident was ordered in the 80's, the world was a very different place back then.

 

I don't know how many countries there are in the world but only 8 have nuclear weapons (7 if you don't include North Korea which doesn't really have the capability). All those non nuclear countries seem to be ok, big old places like Canada and Australia don't see the need so why the hell to we.

 

Rog.

[Tempest 0]

+1

 

It's about keeping jobs in the armaments industry at the expense of jobs in sectors that are more useful to society, but not to a few that play golf together.

 

Tempest

[clumpy1 11]

Mmmmm deterrent... I'm not so sure any more, didn't exactly deter the Argies from invading the Falklands did it.

Everyone knows that no one will push the button so it's not exactly a deterrent any more, don't forget trident was ordered in the 80's, the world was a very different place back then.

 

I don't know how many countries there are in the world but only 8 have nuclear weapons (7 if you don't include North Korea which doesn't really have the capability). All those non nuclear countries seem to be ok, big old places like Canada and Australia don't see the need so why the hell to we.

 

Rog.

Well said Rog. It's all about look at what we got the money could be well better spent

[robrado974 1]

Is the Cold War really over ? , history says it is , but we still keep these bombs just in case . When you think about it , nothing's really changed ,we still spy on each other , it's just become the norm and a bit more in the background now . We were once sending agents over the Berlin Wall to take photographs of easten bloc movements of new missiles , they were putting in place . In modern times , North Korea is being photographed from space , we are keeping an eye on what they are capable of. Not so long ago we had the Cuban Missile crisis . If Korea , had the capability to reach certain countries with war heads , we would have another missile crisis. This thread awakened an old childhood memory of mine . Where i used to live near reading after moving from london , there was a nuclear bunker . After the wall came down and things calmed down , it was no longer manned . We used to climb the fences and break in . It was a mass of tunnels with huge quanties of tinned food and stuff . As kids at sixteen years old , we found it fascinating ,although we didnt know what it was all about at the time .

Edited September 12, 2014 by robrado974

[KipVR 1]

It's better to own a big stick and not use it than get beaten up by the kid who saw you were unarmed.

[KipVR 1]

As far as the Scottish debate goes, well, as an Englishman from the South I don't really care what they do as it's their economy. The only thing I do care about is the Union Jack, I rather like the blue!

Edited September 18, 2014 by KipVR

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Is the Cold War really over ? , history says it is , but we still keep these bombs just in case . When you think about it , nothing's really changed ,we still spy on each other , it's just become the norm and a bit more in the background now . We were once sending agents over the Berlin Wall to take photographs of easten bloc movements of new missiles , they were putting in place . In modern times , North Korea is being photographed from space , we are keeping an eye on what they are capable of. Not so long ago we had the Cuban Missile crisis . If Korea , had the capability to reach certain countries with war heads , we would have another missile crisis. This thread awakened an old childhood memory of mine . Where i used to live near reading after moving from london , there was a nuclear bunker . After the wall came down and things calmed down , it was no longer manned . We used to climb the fences and break in . It was a mass of tunnels with huge quanties of tinned food and stuff . As kids at sixteen years old , we found it fascinating ,although we didnt know what it was all about at the time .

 

Nope, and it never will be. As you say, spying has become more sophisticated and much more covert, but an underlying distrust of other human beings is instilled in us all. Well, apart from the usual minority of LSD fuelled happy clappers who chain themselves to military vehicles.

 

What was that computer virus co-developed by the Israeli and American spies called again? It was targeted at Iran to slow down it's Nucleur development. I think they did a neat bit of malware as well that got into motor speed controllers to destroy the uranium stirrers, or some such. This stuff goes on under our noses all the time.

 

My point is, just because the 21st century world 'appears' to be more civilised and free of nucleur threats, it isn't. In Britain especially, we are sheltered from the barbaric acts that go on all over the globe. In Britain, the worst that can happen to you if you p1ss someone off, is some harsh language, or maybe a slap if you push your luck. In other parts of the world, being murdered is a daily threat. It's comparatively rare in this country.

If we need to be reminded about there being very real threats out there, think 9/11. Conspiracy or not, it happened. It was blatant war mongering and it's still happening. War is coming, make no mistake.

 

At the end of the day, the handful of people right at the top will push the buttons if it comes to it, regardless of what the rest of the globe thinks or wishes.

 

Canada doesn't have nukes, but America does. They are joined. Australia doesn't have nukes, but are they an enemy of the IS? I don't think so.

 

It would be a foolish act to throw away our defences because a minority deem it a waste of money, or at least wait until I'm dead, and then they can do what ever the f'ck they like :D

Edited September 18, 2014 by Kevin Bacon

[Wullie 1]

 

Australia doesn't have nukes, but are they an enemy of the IS? I don't think so

 

Not any more Kev. Australia is not known for pussyfooting about. It will be interesting to see how this develops. http://home.bt.com/news/worldnews/australia-thwarts-beheading-plot-11363933079298

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Not any more Kev. Australia is not known for pussyfooting about. It will be interesting to see how this develops. http://home.bt.com/news/worldnews/australia-thwarts-beheading-plot-11363933079298

 

Oooh, go Australia! Well, then it really is going to be the next 'World' war then.

[coullstar 0]

As far as the Scottish debate goes, well, as an Englishman from the South I don't really care what they do as it's their economy. The only thing I do care about is the Union Jack, I rather like the blue!

 

Thing is mate theres a good chance it will affect the rest of the UK's economy so you should care. I care about how it effects the rest of the UK and its one of the main reasons I voted No today. We are and should be part of a United Nation, Ive become less nationalistic through this process as it only seems to divide and breed some hatred. Id never thought Id ever say things like that but it has changed my view on Scotland, I think its almost selfish what were doing if it goes to a Yes. Almost a look after yourself at the expense of others attitude.

 

There was a good BBC programme on this by Andrew Marr that looks into the effects of Scottish Indepedence on the rest of the UK. You can see why Westminster doesnt want it to happen. Food for thought for us all.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Thing is mate theres a good chance it will affect the rest of the UK's economy so you should care. I care about how it effects the rest of the UK and its one of the main reasons I voted No today. We are and should be part of a United Nation, Ive become less nationalistic through this process as it only seems to divide and breed some hatred. Id never thought Id ever say things like that but it has changed my view on Scotland, I think its almost selfish what were doing if it goes to a Yes. Almost a look after yourself at the expense of others attitude.

 

There was a good BBC programme on this by Andrew Marr that looks into the effects of Scottish Indepedence on the rest of the UK. You can see why Westminster doesnt want it to happen. Food for thought for us all.

 

Can you remember what the program was called?

[Wullie 1]

Can you remember what the program was called?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04dr69k/scotland-votes-whats-at-stake-for-the-uk

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Cheers. I will give that a watch tonight!

[clumpy1 11]

Thing is mate theres a good chance it will affect the rest of the UK's economy so you should care. I care about how it effects the rest of the UK and its one of the main reasons I voted No today. We are and should be part of a United Nation, Ive become less nationalistic through this process as it only seems to divide and breed some hatred. Id never thought Id ever say things like that but it has changed my view on Scotland, I think its almost selfish what were doing if it goes to a Yes. Almost a look after yourself at the expense of others attitude.

 

There was a good BBC programme on this by Andrew Marr that looks into the effects of Scottish Indepedence on the rest of the UK. You can see why Westminster doesnt want it to happen. Food for thought for us all.

I'm with coulstar on this maybe it's because I lived in England for 20 years and have friend's etc down there. I too voted no today I also watched this program and it really could signal the end to Trident I don't want Nuclear weapon's full stop but if we have rogue countries etc then it is sensible to have it.I think alot of the people up here are not getting the proper info and don't understand the enormity of it all, one of the yes campaign's slogan's vote yes and get rid of tories forever Ridiculous trying to play on past politician's.

[davidwort 0]

I think a few of you are missing the point, or rather points, it's not just about having a cold war style deterrent, it's about high tech industry, capability, political influence in the world, so many aspects.

I had a few shares given to me years ago in a UK company that produced robotic systems for inspecting and servicing nuclear installations, it was eventually absorbed into Babcock (a big defence contractor) and the technology developed by these sort of companies is world leading and spins off into pharmaceutical, engineering and manufacturing, as usual we just don't shout about these successes in the UK.

I'm in no doubt that our knowledge, technology, development and economy as a whole benefits in many ways directly and indirectly from being a 'nuclear nation'. It's a bit like people moaning about London getting all the focus and investment, if London wasn't so strong and such a centre for excellence the rest of the country would be poorer as a result.

The problem with health in this country is not down to lack of spending, all advanced economies are burdened by ever spiraling health costs as technology and longevity increases, like it or not taxes will have to increase to support it, simply diverting money from other government spending that actually enhances our technology and earning potential in the world is foolish.