The U K As A Nuclear Superpower?

[sunny-dave]

No link but, since it's election time, do you think a cash-strapped future Government could cancel Trident?

I'd cancel the damn thing in a heartbeat - a waste of money on something that would/could never be used - just a "big boy's toy", used for posturing purposes by those who think the UK still has a credible role as a Global Policeman.

But would the 'dark forces' inside the the Defence Establishment allow any Government (of any hue) to pull the plug?

[dannyk13]

Dave. It is deterrent to make any potential aggressor think twice about launching an attack on us.

[sunny-dave]

That's a bit 1950s/60s Danny - unless you think The Donald is totally out of control?

Explain to me how Trident scares the UK's main enemies in the Caliphate?

[davebro]

It's a tough call - I watched the prog about the bomb tests in 1958.. 1000 times more powerful than Hiroshima - WOW!

No one sane (?) would ever want to unleash that on any population, but then there are some violent extremists who might if they thought there was no comeback. But they might anyway.

[ichkeria]

I believe in our nuclear deterrent, personally.
I don’t think it’s there to enable us to act as a global policeman exactly.
With nuclear warhead proliferation again threatened, now is not the time to be considering such a move.
Not to mention the “America First” and anti NATO sentiments of the current White House. Tho admittedly that is hopefully an aberration.
It might not be though.
It’s also quite a specific form of deterrent, launched from undersea.

[dannyk13]

Sunny-dave, I was not referring to the Caliphate, and although you say that it is 50/60s it is still relevant today.Another thing to consider is that we are part of NATO, and as such we have to contribute to a combined defence.

[Old_Geezer]

Lots of things could happen. I think it unlikely. Although I've been wondering for a while whether it's outgrown it's usefulness. Probably still a deterrent against powerful countries unless they get the impression we'd not use it. That'd be a daft signal to give them. But the main thing now is to prevent smaller, volatile, less civilised countries getting hold of the weapon and using it, because they have no real morals preventing them using such violence as a terrorist weapon nor any care for their fellow citizens.

[KARL]

The question, as you allude to, is whether the UK is grown-up enough to scrap these toys - hopefully but not at all certain. The most often resorted to justification is a version of "Be afraid, be very afraid". The "enemy" supposedly being intimidated is always quite unspecific. The military establishment (not just in the UK but everywhere) is definitely way short of being grown up.

[ichkeria]

And what is more it is Parliament that decides this not the so called “dark forces” of a government department :-)

[Gromit]

I agree with you.
But giving up Nuclear Weapons would result in the UK losing its UN veto*.

*Some would argue that we gave that up decades ago when we starting voting how the US tell us to vote.

[pixie374]

I agree... a total waste of time and money, that we clearly need elsewhere much more urgently xx

[ichkeria]

I think you mean : lose its permanent position on the UN Security Council.
Can you give chapter and verse on the “voting how the US tell us to” or is it another of your casual throwaway lines

[ichkeria]

The UK last used its veto in 1989 - actually in support of the US as it happens.
But it has not supported any of the Trump administrations vetoes.
Vetoing UNSC resolutions in general is not a good thing I’d say. More often than not they obstruct the ability of the UN to act.

[Arrods]

Sir Humphrey says it all!

[youngmafbog]

At the moment stopping Trident would probably not a good idea although over the next 20 years we should plan to be rid of it.

[ToraToraTora]

the way the ruskies are carrying on we need trident more than ever. It's pretty cheap compared to what we spend on WSS anyway.

[ToraToraTora]

SD: "I'd cancel the damn thing in a heartbeat - a waste of money on something that would/could never be used" - you need it so you don't need it. if we didn't have we are defenceless against an agressor who does. Nukes have kept the peace since the last war.

cue usual BS arguments from the anti British, "they didn't deter argentina" - "who do they deter" - yada yada yada!

[ToraToraTora]

...they won us the cold war, the Soviets could have invaded Europe at any time and we could not stop them with conventional forces. Only MAD stopped them.

[ToraToraTora]

I'll start a count down..........10........

[davebro]

Anyway if you want to save money cancelling HS2 is a better option!

[ToraToraTora]

yes cancel HS2 by all means.