Do we need a nuclear ' deterrent ' ?

[Bazile]

Especially in these times of austerity - is spending billions on a replacement for Trident warranted ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18479182

[sandyRoe]

No. Can anyone think of a set of circumstances where the UK would launch nuclear weapons without the permission of the USA?

[jake-the-peg]

We don't need an intercontinental submarine based - bells and whistles systems designed in the cold war to deter other global super-powers.

I can possibly see the point in having a cruise misile or aircraft deployed one.

The mistake is thinking it's Trident or nothing

[andy-hughes]

I find it hard to believe that in a civilised world, we are still involved in nuclear pi**ing contests with other countries.

It would be a step towards peace in the world if we were to abandon this military-upmanship ands spend the morey more wisely.

Military people, whose raison d'etre is to find conflicts real or imagined, will always find reasons to justify this nonsense - it is time they were ignored for the war-mongering fools that they are.

[Brenden]

God forbid there is another world war or any war involving the Uk we find ourselves in the same state of readiness as we did at the start of ww2.

[jake-the-peg]

God forbid we get into another stupid arms race that ends up in a global conflict like WWI

[Bazile]

Call me naive , but I cannot see that any state would launch a nuclear attack , against a western power , with the resulting retaliation that would ensue .

This ' deterrent ' is in my opinion just an excuse to keep our arms industry going ... jobs and all that

[jake-the-peg]

I can see that but not in the way you envisage.

For example if the US attempted an invasion of Iran the way that they invaded Iraq can you not see the iranians being willing to detonate nuclear devices in the desert against invading forces?

I couldn't see the US retalliating i such a circumstance with ICBMs against Tehran.

I cannot see a full scale cold-war style nuclear exchange - I can see "small" scale tactical nuclear weapons being used.

This is why I say it's a mistake to think Trident or nothing

[Ric.ror]

How many have we got?
Surely one is enough

[andy-hughes]

Actually Ric, you'd think so, but the military types would argue -

'hostile' countries constantly expand and update their weapons, so we must do the sane.

If we could devote that financial and intelligence resource to preventing other nations being 'hostile' - everyone would be a lot better off.

[pdq1]

I can't see why the present one doesn't work. Why upgrade with all the expense it entails. Does the new one kill thousands more people.

[anotheoldgit]

The money would be better spent on providing our troops (that are already in a conflict) with the very latest up to date vehicles and weaponry that money can buy.

[andy-hughes]

pdq1 - half the battle of one-upmanship is not so much the missiles themselves, as their ability to reach their tragets.

Upgrades on both sides arise because each side's defences become more sophisticated, therefore it requires more sophisticated (read expensive) to pemetrate those ever-upgraded erxpenses. The logic is that it's no use having a missle that can obliterate hundreds of miles of people and buildings (I know - how do people think like this?) if it can't reach its target, so upgrading is locked into the process.

It would be better if the leaders simply talked to each other, and dicussed differences, and put their money and resources into that rea, instead of sitting either side of the planet smug in the ability to obliterate each other.

It won;t happen in my lifetime, but having seen the changes in world attitudes that i have - I live in hope for my children and grandchildren.

[Bazile]

How do the government know that they are getting good value for money and is not a case of ' we can see you coming '

I always wonder when these big government contracts are awarded if the tax payers are paying through the teeth , by these companies inflating their costs .
Afterall , it's a captive audience , isnt it .

[pdq1]

Putting the fear of killing many of the population is wrong. They now have the technology to aim a missile at whoever they want. What with Google, drones and high technology no terrorist leader or head of state is safe and they should be the target for any upgrades to the missile system.

[jno]

Ric.ror, I imagine our nukes, when put to the test, will work at least as well as, oh, say, the NHS computer system.

[Old_Geezer]

One might seek agreement from allies such as the USoA for an attack using nuclear weapons, but maybe not even then. But to retaliate no one has the time to go asking if it is alright even if they wanted to. If anything the big problem is, does the PM have time to make such a momentous decision in the time he or she has available. Chances are, not.

In the past I have tended towards the view that we need to be too scary to attack, and I do think this balance held the peace for a number of decades. I just wonder if, what with knowledge of nuclear winters, it is still a good use of military expenditure. No expert but even small tactical nukes are likely to make quite a large mess aren't they ? My suspicion is that the money might be better spent by "biting the bullet" and opting out of nuclear and spending more on high tech for the forces instead. But if the experts think there are a few more rounds of replacement worth while then I'm unable to refute that with any evidence to the contrary.

[anotheoldgit]

Bazile

It is just the same when one takes one's car for a body work repair, the first thing the garage estimator will ask you, "Is it an Insurance job" if the answer is yes then up goes the price.

And the same applies with your local council tenders, one can get a job done much cheaper than they can.

[andy-hughes]

AOG's point highlights the surreal aspect of the whole nuclear, and indeed military 'threat' that we apparenlty need to spend billions on arming ourselves against.

It is time to accept that military action is not going to win the objectives it seeks, and to start negotiation with the powers that are perceived as opponents.

Constant, and nine-figure expensive sabre-rattling is doing nothing except keep armed forces dying in unwinable conflicts.

[Bazile]

Indeed AOG - however garages are numerous in numbers , and you can shop around making it likely that you can get a lower price by telling each garage what the others are charging .

In this case there are very few companies in the business , and so your oppurtunity to shop around is extremely limited

[MoonRocker]

It's a paradox but you need them so you don't need them! It's known as MAD.