AIBU to think that Trident is no longer relevant to modern warfare & that the £100bn (estimated) cost would be far better spent helping the NHS, the refugee/migrant crisis and many other issues?

[DarthVadersTailor]

I just don't see why we need Trident these days and can't help but think the money would be better spent elsewhere. Surely this type of deterrent belongs to the cold war and isn't really effective when thinking of the threats from ISIS and other such groups?

Would love to hear your thoughts

[milkmilklemonade12]

YABU. We need Trident as a deterrent. If we got rid of it, there's nothing to stop others from using their nuclear arms to threaten/railroad us.

It's how it is.

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

Sorry but if they're daft enough to get rid of it & gain come cash back, sod blowing it on the money pit that is the NHS or other social welfare etc.

Spend it on upgrading the road infrastructure to enable workers to get to their jobs more effectively and claw back millions of hours spent stuck in cars.

Spend it on a few nuclear power stations so we actually gain a degree of independence power wise...

Do something to help the whole country....

[FatherReboolaConundrum]

Most EU countries have the luxury of not having to maintain a nuclear deterrent precisely because the UK and France maintain independent nuclear deterrents.

Not true. If nuclear deterrence works in a post-Cold War environment (big if), then the non-nuclear European states will be benefitting from the nucelar shield provided by the USA, not the piddling little arsenals of the French and the British.

Who, exactly is the UK's nuclear arsenal designed to deter? Obviously not the states with so many more weapons that the whole basis of nuclear deterrence (having a second strike capability, so that your enemy can't just wipe out your nuclear weapons in a sneak attack) is removed. So, our nuclear arsenal is no use against either Russia or China (or the USA if things got really weird). So who does that leave? Israel, India, Pakistan? None of them are going to launch a nuclear strike against the UK. North Korea appear to lack the capacity (so far) to produce long range nukes and in any case the UK would hardly be top of their hitlist.

Like the non-nuclear members of NATO, the UK is covered by the Article 5 guarantee in the NATO treaty which says that an attack on one member state is an attack on all. So like, say, Belgium, we benefit from the US's nuclear arsenal. It's this, rather than a handful of British missiles, that offers us and the other European NATO states protection from the kind of threats that might be deterred in a conventional way (e.g. threats from states not from IS). That's why Russia can invade Ukraine but not Finland - Finland is covered by Article 5 and therefore by the US's nuclear and immense conventional forces; Ukraine isn't but wanted to be, so Russia got in there before it could join NATO and have the same protection.

[DarthVadersTailor]

itsmine How would Trident be effective in the case of ISIS though? They are terrorists who fight under no national banner, where would it strike? That's what I'm getting at I suppose - Nuclear weapons are designed with striking at a nation in mind (so yes a threat like NK could be targeted) but how do you use them against an enemy with no country? If you launched against ISIS Fighters residing in Syria, for example, then surely that's just a nuclear attack against Syria itself? Admittedly there are no easy answers here, hence why I don't believe that nuclear weapons are a realistic war option in the main & part of the reason why they have not been used since 1945.

[BrandNewAndImproved]

Agreed! I mean even if we had a nuclear strike here and we hit back the world would be fucked. So either way we're fucked so let's at least put the money to better use.

[DarthVadersTailor]

partial The campaign for nuclear disarmament quoted this figure, though admittedly it's unlikely to be an unbiased source.

I have to say I had no idea about a penalty clause for cancelling Trident, this does indeed put a discussion about cancelling in the fairly pointless category I guess.

Personally I just don't think nuclear warfare seems as relevant to today's landscape where the major threats we face seem to be terrorists who fly no national flag and cyber terrorism which exists on another plane entirely, neither of which are threats that Trident can deter. Perhaps having a big nuclear stick might have felt more relevant during the cold war but it doesn't feel that way now (not stating this as fact mind!). For those posters worried about Russia, and I see exactly where you're coming from on that front, I just can't imagine a stage where the threat of unleashing a nuclear arsenal is likely to happen, not in this day & age where mankind is far more aware of the damage such weapons create and the global financial impact such devastation would have (without mentioning huge losses of life), I can't see any nation really willing to risk an inevitable global nuclear war.....and the types of people in this world who potentially would detonate a nuclear device upon a populace (ie terrorists) couldn't necessarily be targeted with nuclear weaponry anyway. It might seem like a naive view that I have, maybe it is, but I see nuclear weaponry as outmoded now.

BTW reading the responses on here has been quite informative and had made for good reading

[MaidOfStars]

memyself SA has decommissioned?

[partialderivative]

OP, can I ask where you got the figure of ??100 BN from?

This BBC article 'Reality Check' gives a balanced (IMO) view of the costs involved.

www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

[Prole]

Seems a big waste of money and aren't sure what's meant by a deterrent.

The Early warning system (the infamous four minute warning) was scrapped over twenty years ago. So if the threat is no longer worthy of such, who are we deterring exactly? For all the worry of 'rogue' states (anyone not a UNSC permanent member it seems) only one country has ever dropped a nuke on another.

In terms of the employment opportunities (the fear of) Mutually Assured Destruction might provide; aren't all of the armed services currently running short staffed? Annual recruitment quotas have been partially unfilled for some years now. The RN is short of 170 submarine engineers alone*. Would this vast pile of cash suddenly fill all those empty ranks? With SNP dominance, I doubt Faslane/Coulport is a marginal constituency either.

*Source current Private Eye pg10

[Memyselfandthatotherperson]

Why does everyone always forget South Africa

[Justanotherlurker]

Genuine mistake I thought we developed the ballistics and the warheads where American.

Agree though that the scrap trident argument fails at the first hurdle on a cost basis alone.

[Weathergames]

We own the warhead - we don't own the missile.

I used to be very anti and belonged to the CND in my teens.

I am now with someone who is on Trident. I don't feel that strongly about it either way now tbh. I find submarines fascinating and think OH is nuts to be on one (ESP in the rubbish condition the old ones are in).

I do think it's a waste of money and so does a OH really and it's not an easy life but it's kept food on our table.

The same could be said of expenses in the House of Lords and there is no telling where they would waste the money elsewhere - prob wouldn't go to the NHS would it?

The contracts are all signed now would cost far too much to get out of and decommissioning etc.

[VeryPunny]

WE OWN THE WARHEADS!!!!

In case anyone missed it, WE OWN, BUILD, DESIGN AND MAINTAIN THE WARHEADS.

The rocket bit that delivers the warhead is leased from the US. But the UK could take the nuke bit and stick it in a plane, tank or briefcase to deliver it to target.

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

Nuclear weapons always strike me as the ultimate groupthink - we are never going to use it, but we have to have it because other people have it, and are never going to use it. And if anyone did use it, we would all die.

[irateninja]

Justanotherlurker - The UK absolutely owns the warheads, only the rocket is american.

[FyreFly]

By the time you've finished decommissioning the weaponry and submarines, you'd save barely any money.

And let's not forget the thousands of jobs that would be lost directly from the closure of the base. There are 3000 service men and women (plus their families), 4000 civilian workers directly dependent on the base. That's 7000 jobs that would be gone immediately. Plus the local shops, businesses and traders that depend on those 7000.

I've seen the devastation the closure of two local military base has caused in my area. There is one base left nearby, and if that goes it really won't be worth thinking about... The military is one of the areas biggest employers.

www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/apr/30/savings-scrapping-trident-negligible-snp

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/07/trident-faslane-scotland-snp-cost

Even the Guardian doesn't think it's a good idea.

[Justanotherlurker]

We own the weapons but the warheads are American

We are not a target because we have trident, it's a second strike system, it means we can we can negotiate with any rouge state that may appear within the next 50 years, as soon as North Korea or Iran get them then we have to take them seriously.

You are really playing down the deterrent, whilst ignoring the fact that many countries rely on us having them for their protection.

It cannot be un invented and until there is world wide peace this deterrent is needed.

[irateninja]

I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts....

We're running out of oil. In 20 years that situation is going to be worse.

We, and the rest of the world will not be able to move to alternate sources quickly enough, it just isn't practical. India and China have over a billion citizens each, they will unavoidably consume a vast amount of resources. Russia is expanding, and have demonstrated in Chechnya, Georgia 2008, and Ukraine that will use military force to expand their territory.

How unlikely do you think it is that they will try to take Norwegian, or British territory to make use of the oil resources?

They ONLY way to prevent that is to have a nuclear deterrent in place.

??100B cost quoted is over the 50 year life of the submarine, so not entirely unreasonable. The cost of the NHS will run into the many trillions in that time!

[Weathergames]

As I said - we don't own the weapons

[VeryPunny]

Weathergames Not quite. The UK leases the missiles,but designs,builds and maintains the weapons package (the nuke bit) and the submarines. The UK can launch a nuclear weapon independently, without the USA being involved.

misskelly Every day,many radioisotopes for medical use are transported through the UK's cities. Worrying about the amounts used for weapons whilst medical radioisotopes are moved about the country is idiotic.

Egosumquisum Having weapons mayb make you a target but it significantly reduces your attractiveness as a target. Just ask Israel...