Nuclear Deterent

[Khandro]

Given the instability and volatility of the world, wouldn't the removal of Britain's nuclear weapons, as advocated by the SNP, be an act of irresponsible, crass stupidity?

[ladybirder]

I'm glad you've brought this subject up Khandro. I look forward to a good debate from well informed posters to help me make up my mind. I think I agree with you but look forward to hearing others' views.

[paddywak]

I'm afraid in this day and age it wouldn't matter if we've a deterent or not.The threat is more likely to come from some Jihadist who doesn't care what happens after he's claimed his place in heaven along with his allotted share of virgins,it wont matter that everybody else will be floating around in a cloud of radio active dust he'll be all right.

[Old_Geezer]

In the past I'm convinced these were necessary. I'm unsure they hold much sway any more. I think I'd rather see them replaced with new, but I'd not lose a lot of sleep if the money was spend on conventional armaments and recruits instead. One might just get more affect per £, but I think it a close run thing. As for instability, what are you thinking they can be used for ? First use in IS held areas maybe ? Or perhaps those Russian devils ?

[plowter]

When would you use it as a deterent?

What if insurgents destabilised the Middle East?
What if Russia invaded Ukraine?
What if North Korea threatened the south?

It's not a deterent.
The UK would only use it when instructed by the US.
Waste of money.

[vetuste_ennemi]

"...I look forward to a good debate from well informed posters...".
The triumph of hope over experience, don't you think, LadyBirder?

[Khandro]

plowter; //When would you use it as a deterent?// - an oxymoron if ever there was one. You may be innocent of the fact that small quantities of plutonium are being illegally transferred around the world and are accumulating in places like Kazakhstan. There are people in and outside of governmental control with different agendas, hell-bent on making biological and nuclear weapons. We have no conception of how our world will be in 20, 30 year's time. We have a weapon which can act as a deterent from attack, it would be extreme folly to dispose of it, wouldn't you say?

[naomi24]

I can’t claim to be one of the well-informed posters that Ladybirder mentions, but I think it would be folly to dispose of it. It’s intended to be a deterrent and that’s what it is.

[sandyRoe]

Who does it deter? It's a waste of money.

[Khandro]

Sandy; Specifically, that is an unanswerable question.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes. Usual BS above, you need them to avoid purpetual blackmail from a future nuclear armed agressor, they currently serve no other purpose than MAD. You need them so you don't need them, end of. Usual who's gong threaten us? yadda yadda....etc I don't know that's why we need them. They don't deter most of the things that people like plowter et al spout they are there only as a last resort. EG in the past they stopped overwhealming soviet convetional forces invading Europe, the Soviet Union knew that the west would use nukes if they did. We do not know what future threats there will be.

[ichkeria]

"What if Russia invaded Ukraine?
What if North Korea threatened the south? "

Ukraine was told it wouldn't need its nuclear weapons any more
And guess what happened ...

North Korea's nuclear capability is a deterrent against invasion from the South
Much as I detest the regime, like everyone else, they have a point
So, in some circumstances, maybe not a waste of money ...
In any event, the SNP will never get their way with Polaris as long as the UK exists as an entity.

[-Talbot-]

Maybe having them deters Russian planes from coming into UK airspace rather than just near UK airspace?