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.

It's not just about being targeted during a conflict though - proximity makes us more vulnerable to accidental detonation, nuclear materials being leaked (inc into our water), enemy spies trying to gain access etc

If none of you have read "the letter of last resort" it's very interesting, its one of the first thing the PM has to do when they get into power!

Like someone said, it's used as a 2nd strike, i.e. we will only use it if we are attack, we have 4 nuclear subs, and 1 of them is always out in the ocean somewhere, and only a few people know it's location, I'm 99% sure most of the crew won't even know where they are in the world

Can’t say I’m thrilled to live in the kill zone either. Parts are traveling on the roads quite frequently too, not a comforting thought. We don’t need to face the threat of nuclear attacking for this to cause concern. One small problem or accident is all it would take.

For those who would take it for the jobs you can have it. As far as I’m aware it offers very, very poor value for cost and returns on jobs.

Lots of issues being conflated on this thread - for me it boils down to this: imagine if just one country in the world had nukes (say Russia). The ability it would give that country to bully, coerce and blackmail almost every other country in the world would be unprecedented.

As some posters have stated, most world states don’t possess nuclear weapons - but most who don’t seek security agreements with those that do. They do that for sound strategic reasons.

Nuclear weapons have not stopped warfare around the globe. Nor will they stop terrorism. But to suggest they would wilfully misses the point. What they do deter is major state on state aggression. The uk has a policy of no first strike - other nations (Russia) do not.

Ultimately, were we to get rid of our nukes we would only be doing what many European countries already really do - effectively outsourcing our nuclear umbrella to the USA via article 5 of the nato treaty. On which cynical politics the Americans get rightly miffed!

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

It might be worth remembering that they have opened the Hiroshima Peace memorial every year since the A bomb dropped to add more names to the list of those who have died as a direct result of the bomb.

You’re not just being unreasonable, you’re being ridiculous. Y’all are literally supporting the British government doing the exact same thing as the Russian government you’re complaining about. There’s already mutually assured destruction, most people acknowledged that about 50 years ago actually.

Look, Russia has bombs, America has bombs (the UK honestly doesn’t matter as it acts as a little puppet for the latter). If one fires, the other has their missiles automatically set, all major countries are destroyed, everybody else dies from radiation poisoning / radioactive ash etc.

So, please tell me what more billions of pounds add to this equation? I heard the NHS is struggling...

Happy stripper - your post assumes all nations are the same rational actors - they are not. Russia will have a very different view on the use of nuclear weapons to us - that is why they retain a first use policy and retain tactical battfield nuclear weapons (we do neither). The uk retains a small (but stilll potent) strategic arsenal to deter aggression from other nuclear states.

To unilaterally put down our big stick assumes two things. First that other nuclear powers would find our membership of nato (as underwritten by American nukes) credible deterrence. That puts our national interest in American hands. Secondly that other nations (Russia) wouldn’t seek to bully us as a newly non nuclear nation (Ukraine anyone?).

Those who think putting our nukes away would make us less of a target are, respectfully, naive fantasists who don’t understand our history or place in the world - both of which make us a ready target for coercion and blackmail by other states.

Has nt May also said she would not rule out first strike?

Devonport will never be used as a base for Trident, its just not big enough any more, its not the base it was in the 70s or 80s, so where would we put the S/w version of RNAS Coulport? Rame peninsula/NT Antony house, plus buying up numerous small villages etc is the only place suitable and there is the small matter of Plymouth (pop 300k) literally in the middle of this base. Faslane is 30 miles form Glasgow.

But so far has come out with when the UK would threaten or use Trident without the USA taking the lead?

What pisses of the Yanks isnt Europe relying on them for the so called Nuclear deterrent, its that Europe, inc the UK, does not spend enough on its own conventional defence, like it or not, the only way Europe can achieve more in this respect is by a European defence force, otherwise, you ll just have multiple command structures, duplication and disorganisation.

Those who think putting our nukes away would make us less of a target are, respectfully, naive fantasists who don’t understand our history or place in the world

The world is changing. Hundreds of years ago we had a navy which ruled the seas, invested in boats etc etc. The world moved on..... now we are looking at internet based warfare, the reliance on other countries for our energy supplies, election interference, climate change, plastic pollution etc etc.

I think having a big stick is the least of our defences against the threats that we face.

That puts our national interest in American hands. Secondly that other nations (Russia) wouldn’t seek to bully us as a newly non nuclear nation (Ukraine anyone?).

With 16 frigates, Aircraft Carrier with no planes, an army of 80k soldiers and 127 front line jets, these are total numbers and not those available, the UK defence forces are a mire shadow of their former selves, we are totally reliant on the USA, as is ALL of Western Europe.

the Russians apparently have been murdering uk citizens with impunity, interfering with elections, with success.... oh and breaching our sea and air defences.... despite Trident!!
the UK does not border Russia, so Putin would have to cross Western Europe to invade us, in order to make the comparison you have with Eastern Ukraine.

Has nt May also said she would not rule out first strike?

She can't wait!

What has she got to lose, after all?

Stop wrecking the future for our kids, please.