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

[VeryPunny]

YABU. It's not just their deterrent value, being a country that has the engineering expertise to design,build and maintain a submarine system capable of delivering a nuclear weapon is a massive deal. We lose that knowledge and expertise at our peril.

[RaspberrySwitchblade]

Do you think that engineering expertise is best used to make weapons then, Very?

I'd rather investment in more productive ends. Especially with my taxes

[ItsTimeForDuggee]

YABU

[VeryPunny]

There is considerable crossover between military and civilian technology - nuclear reactor technology is one obvious one. If you think that your tax money will suddenly start paying for engineers to make super duper baby incubators because Trident is cancelled, you're deluded.

Yes,you could see it as a direct subsidy to keep certain industries working and innovating in the UK, but it's important to have those in the UK. Or would you prefer us to buy in our military technology from Russia?

[MaryPoppinsPenguins]

YABU

[misskelly]

My psychic powers tell me that the closer we get to the renewal date, more stories about the threat of Russia will strangely increase. Why any Russian would want to attack us when they already own most of London in beyond me.

I live not to far from Trident and am furious that this will be forced upon me, I wonder how keen many of those in favor of it would be happy to live near it, why not have it on the Thames. Bearing in mind that to keep it maintained parts of it are often transported on the road network. I think in a digital age overrun with hackers this is more of a threat to us than a deterrent to others.

[Cloppysow]

Somebody is making lots and lots of money from weapons, that's why we'll always have them.

[GinandJag]

The only country that has removed nuclear weapons from their soil is Ukraine...

[VeryPunny]

Egosumquisum Most EU countries have the luxury of not having to maintain a nuclear deterrent precisely because the UK and France maintain independent nuclear deterrents. And yes, the UK was significantly more at risk from nuclear weapons - you only have to look at the declassified Soviet target lists to see that. Without the UK and French nuclear deterrents we could have easily been in a state where Russia rolled across Europe and the US decided that it didn't really need to bother too much about Europe. The value is in systems such as Trident because they are second strike - no matter if you launch first, we still have the hidden capability to retaliate, so there's no benefit to be gained by attacking first.

You can get your bottom dollar that ISIL or vwhatever they are called this week are extremely interested in nuclear weapons, and that the near - certainty of retaliation by the West if they use one that is keeping them from seriously pursuing that avenue.

[Weathergames]

We don't own the weapons, we only own the submarines. America 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...

[Weathergames]

As I said - we don't own the weapons

[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!

[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.

[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.

[irateninja]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.