AIBU to sleep easier knowing Trident renewed with Putin’s recent antics

[Gartenzwerg]

AIBU to think that our MPs did the absolutely right thing in renewing our nuclear deterrent last year, given the recent hoo-haa with Russia and the nerve agent. Russia have proved that they are a serious threat to us as a nation.

Jeremy Corbyn should be ashamed of himself for trying to mislead us into thinking that we have nothing to fear from Russia. We absolutely can’t trust them.

The fear is misplaced.
We aren’t in the Cold War anymore.

The Cold War didn't end; and as for under resourcing in intelligence...Five Eyes anyone?

I'm glad you think the fear is misplaced Believe, I don't; the Baltic States, the Poles and NATO don't think it's misplaced either. I think Putin is seeing how far he can push, as he did with Ukraine.

YANBU. Credible nuclear deterrence has worked well for over 60 years, and will continue to do so.
Well, it will unless Corbyn becomes PM. He will not defend the UK from external threats

what peace is that? nukes didnt prevent Falklands, Ukraine, Tibet, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc

In the 80s a Russian officer saw that the USA had fired 5 missiles and his instruction was to launch russia's missiles, he didnt, ignore orders and waited, turned out it was a computer glitch...... same with the USA, in the 80's they even got to sending nuclear armed bombers into the skies before realising it was incorrect data.

Nukes dont deter a rogue lunatic element nor if a unstable leader got hold of them....

As i said earlier, come up with a scenario where the UK would launch or threaten to use Trident without the USA ?

What I mean is, I don’t think think nuclear is the thing to fear.

Russia have other means to attack, that’s what we have to fear. So let’s focus those

Believe What about when all those things escalate? I don't fear nuclear weapons, as a thing in themselves, they are neither good, nor bad; what alarms me is the lengths to which Putin might go. What happens if he decides to force a land bridge to Kaliningrad, or that ethnic Russians need protecting in the Baltic States that are NATO nations, and thus Article 5 gets invoked?

Strong conventional forces will prevent Putin invading the Baltic states not Nukes which he knows full well we wouldn't launch to protect Estonia.
Unfortunately, even if you believe in a brexit dividend, its going to be spent on tanks and planes.

Mhairi Black's speech on why she voted against Trident sums it up for me really...

'Government Members seem to have the idea that we in the Scottish National party are against nuclear weapons for some kind of romanticised reason, but the reality is that we are against nuclear weapons and renewing Trident for logical reasons.

First, we have to remember the fact that, fundamentally, Trident is a weapon. We have already established that we would not fire first, so the only time that we would ever use this weapon would be if somebody launched a nuclear strike against us. To be frank, that would mean that we were all dead anyway. If I am dying, I do not care if we send a weapon back; I am more worried about the one that is coming towards me.^
^
We keep hearing the phrase, “We can’t predict the future”, but if we are going to make defence policy, surely we have to think wisely about what we are deterring. What are the threats that we face? The 2015 national security strategy set out the tier 1 threats faced by the UK: international terrorism,,^ climate change and cybercrime. How many terrorist attacks have nuclear weapons protected us or France from? The answer is zero. They have got hee-haw to do with climate change or cybercrime, so that brings us back to the argument that they are a deterrent, but only nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. How come the other 180-plus countries do not feel the need to have this deterrent?^
^
What other arguments are there for keeping Trident? We keep hearing that we need to keep it for the sake of jobs. Yes, it involves skilled engineers, scientists and workers who work very hard and are very talented, but why do we not invest the billions of pounds that we are proposing to spend on it in our energy and engineering sectors? Why do we not use that money in our renewable energy sectors? Climate change is a tier 1 threat to us, so why do we not spend that money on trying to tackle it?^
^
If these weapons are not a security necessity and they are not necessary to save jobs, that prompts the question: what are they for? The fact of the matter is that this is all really about the UK maintaining a permanent place on the UN Security Council. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who is unfortunately not in his seat, made clear, these weapons serve no purpose other than satisfying the ego of the British establishment. This is about us putting our stamp on a world from which we are isolating ourselves more and more.


Too many times, I have sat in this Chamber and heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) eloquently said, that we cannot afford to look after the disabled, we cannot afford to look after our unemployed and we cannot afford to pay pensions on time. We have heard Conservativee^ Members say that they are the Government making the difficult choices, but the very same people who made the argument for austerity are now telling us that we can afford to write a blank cheque for these useless weapons. And for what? To preserve Westminster’s self-indulgent image of importance. This is all part of the Government’s long-term economic sham.^
^
I want to provide some context about the reality of what this means. Paisley Gilmour Street, in my constituency, is the busiest railway station in Scotland outside Glasgow and Edinburgh, and it is one of the main routes on which nuclear waste is transported. Used nuclear rods come through my constituency, not in the dead of night but during the day when people are standing on the platform waiting to go to work in Greenock, or wherever else. If a mistake was made and an accident happened, it would be the equivalent of a dirty bomb. I put it to the Government that they, and their obsession with nuclear weapons, are one of the greatest threats facing my constituents.'

Glad you think it’s so easy Scary, feel free to take them off our hands.

Unfortunately the 2012 Cross party committee of MPs who actually looked at this issue in the light of possible Independence said that funding replacement location was:

highly problematic, very expensive, and fraught with political difficulties".

My understanding is that Devonport could take the submarines but would not be able to provide a suitable replacement for Coulport (on Loch Long, eight miles from Faslane where the war heads are stored) Falmouth could take them but is too far away.

The only Welsh site suitable is too near oil facilities for safety and Barrow in Furness is too shallow.

We could have located them in France but I guess Brexit might have screwed that idea.

Thistlebelle There's enough room on Dartmoor to build a facility for the warheads, and Devonport could do with the work and income generated by Trident, and the rest of the submarine fleet. People said much the same of Brexit as that committee said about moving Trident, and Brexit is happening. If there were a need to move it, it would happen, and no, running the boats from, or storing the warheads in, France, would not have been an acceptable option as it would cost MOD far too much.

I never said it wasn’t possible Scary, I said it would be very expensive and difficult.

Which it would be.

Out of interest, why does it matter?

Say the Russians sent 2 or 3 ICBMs into Scotland, Devonport, Portsmouth and London and of course into similar establishments/cities across europe, what exactly would be left?

anyhows, Devonport is a shadow of its former self, as large sections sold off for housing/bars etc, same at Portsmouth.

Any Tory Government would lose every seat they ve got in the S/W if they moved Trident to Plymouth, let alone dug up Dartmoor.

So, if Scotland gained independence, the deal would be that Trident stayed there and then at end of life, we d no doubt move to an airborne deterrent or scrape it all and lose our seat at the UN, we ve not the money anymore.

Yeah it’s great living 10 miles from a massive nuclear ticking bomb. Get rid of it!

Actually the people I'm talking about are pretty high up in RN. One of whom reports directly to govt on this very issue.

Jasjas yes I love how people go "we've had peace for 60 years" no we haven't! Far from it - just ask ANYONE who's served in the military in that time.

I too like what mhairi black said its spot on - it's nothing to do with protecting us it's a Dick measuring issue!

As for not fearing nuclear weapons - that shows an ASTOUNDING level of ignorance on the danger they pose.

Jas I'd be voting Tory if they moved Trident to the SW. I've been watching Devonport die by inches over the past 34 years, and it is such a waste.

There is no mileage in an airborne deterrent; if there were, we wouldn't have had Polaris and then Trident. Far easier to shoot a plane down or hit a silo, than attempt to find a dived submarine somewhere in the ocean.

You don't even have to dig up Dartmoor....there is land in Cornwall too, just across the Tamar and the Hamoaze.

YABU times a thousand. More nukes, more danger. And why is it wrong that Mr Corbyn preferred to wait for proof of Russian involvement before issuing threats and reprisals? I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of the sort of justice you and HMG seem to enjoy giving out.

It buys a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, with it the power of veto.....
I lived on a route for the road transport of nuclear material. A route where in 2010 there was an explosion in the forest near Gartocharn village. They said it was criminal rather than terrorist related. I think that's bullshit.
I also have an issue with old decommissioned subs still docked at Rosyth. One's been there since 1980. Their reactors have been defueled, but it will take years to removed the radioactive material. Much like the rest of the nuclear industry there seems to be poor planning for proper long term disposal and safe storage of radioactive material.

Graphista I am married to a nuclear submariner, so to me nuclear weapons are like cars....it's the people who exercise the ultimate control who are dangerous, not the things themselves.

Do you worry about nuclear medicine, or the massive nuclear reactor that powers the earth, aka the sun?

If we die in a nuclear war, it will probably be quick and we won't have time to feel pain, unlike having chemical weapons used on you.

As for cost, I understand that the Defence Secretary has got some dosh from the contingency fund to replace what the RN spends on Trident ( and hopefully we'll go back to it not being totally funded by the RN) as it should be totally funded outside the MOD budget anyway.

The 'senior bods' you know can brief all they like. Having Trident is part of our commitment to NATO, as they well know, and the Trident spend forms part of our 2%.

"Much like the rest of the nuclear industry there seems to be poor planning for proper long term disposal and safe storage of radioactive material" exactly!

Scary how old are you? Do you remember the Cold War, Chernobyl and others? Of which we don't even KNOW the long term effects?

"Do you worry about nuclear medicine, or the massive nuclear reactor that powers the earth, aka the sun?" Er yes you don't? we don't KNOW the long term effects of the use of nuclear medicine. As for the sun well that wouldn't be posing too much of an issue if it weren't for the fact we've fucked the ozone layer!

"If we die in a nuclear war" have you actually researched what happens when a nuclear bomb is dropped? It ISN'T Instant for everyone. Have you even heard of radiation sickness? Suggest you do some proper research into what has happened where nuclear bombs HAVE actually already been used and the effects on the environment and population.

Doesn't even need to be bombs dropped.

Local charities near me host children and others from Chernobyl area to let them eat food that is uncontaminated and build their health up. They're still very much dealing with the ramifications and that was over 30 years ago. And the effects go on through generations.

As someone married to a submariner do you know there's been very poor research done on the effects on them? That it's simply not known the effects of any exposure that they experience may have on their genes?

You sound very naive.

"The 'senior bods' you know can brief all they like. Having Trident is part of our commitment to NATO, as they well know, and the Trident spend forms part of our 2%."

That's not a good thing necessarily - I'd rather these decisions were based on safety and morals than political pissing contests. Politicians know bugger all.

Yeah it's brilliant having Trident right beside one of Scotland's most populated areas.
Being in the disaster zone along with half of Scotland is such a nice thing to think about.
I reckon most folk wld feel pretty different if it was in their doorstep.

The subs don’t sit around the dockyard... they’re out at sea deep in the ocean. That’s the point of nuclear submarines... Assured second strike capability if U.K. is attacked.

Our history suggests we are a greater threat to world peace than Russia.

Coconut - and HOW do you think they get there? They're not transported by sea, they're transported on our roads and by rail near here which even just reading the full thread would have told you.

They pass through highly populated industrial areas.

And sometimes they ARE in the dockyard for maintenance/for the PEOPLE involved to get on the subs.

@scaryteacher I think messing with elections and cutting off energy supplies is pretty serious in itself.

I doubt very much he would even need to go nuclear. We aren’t even investing fully in nuclear weapons so let’s not pretend it would actually work.

And actually we as a nation should walk away from meddling. Look at the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Coconut - and HOW do you think they get there? They're not transported by sea, they're transported on our roads and by rail near here which even just reading the full thread would have told you.

Fair point, but in the event of nuclear war, Glasgow, as the UK’s 3rd largest city, is going to get nuked anyway...

I wish I could turn back time or put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, but I can’t.... So to disarm unilaterally against the likes of Putin would be madness. I hate guns too... they’ve killed 10s, if not 100s, of millions since their invention, but of course I still want our army and (where necessary) police to have them. Imagine if they didn’t!