Go on then - why should we replace Trident?

[SenoraPostrophe]

...when

a) it costs such a silly amount
b) it would be in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
c) not renewing it might help us to persuade other countries to do the same
d) the danger these days is non-state specific terrorism, not nuclear war per se
e) apparently it isn't even a truly "independent deterrent" anyway because it relies on the US GPS system.

I am very worked up about this and plan to write to my MP, so would like to know any other arguments against, or some arguments in favour.

**this thread is dedicated to jessajam who was moaning about vapid threads. It might be too dull for her though.

N Korea doesn't have nukes yet. In fact it is in a very similar position to that which they told us Iraq was in, and that was the putative cause of the invasion.

I take your point about the US not necessarily being a friend, but as I said in the first post, I believe that our nuclear deterrent relies on US GPS systems. Thus if we were to go to war with them, all they'd have to do would be to turn it off. I don't think Russia would be "shamed" into disarming if we disarmed, but it would give political momentum to disarmament generally and might give them the confidence to do so.

Finally I really don't see the point about Iceland: it wasn't invaded was it? nor was Australia, Japan, Canada or any other non nuclear country within reasonable range of Russian missiles.

The US isn't going to invade North Korea though. Even if the did have nukes.

There are practical arguments for and against the renewal of Trident - although I think the local jobs issue (at an estimated £5 million pounds per job!)is perhaps stretching things a bit - and as far as I can see, all that happened in the Cold War was that the West and Russia fought their wars by proxy in other countries. However I for one believe that it is morally indefensible to threaten other people with weapons that are completely indiscriminate (and it is PEOPLE that are threatened, not countries, but Mums, Dads, kids etc)

I don't know about a Mumsnet affinity group - I've been up to Faslane with Northern Quakers, and we are intending to go again.

I'm afraid Senapostrophe is wrong. N.Korea has succesfully tested nuclear weapons. Google if you hadn't seen that. They're not very "good" nukes, could only destroy one or two cities, but still nukes.
Some of our weapons systems do indeed use GPS, but they also have inertial guidance which cannot be jammed by the USA, or anyone else short of god.
All the current generation of nuclear systems were built assuming the Russians would take out GPS very quickly as it is a pathetically vulnerable system.

You don't need GPS for nuclear deterrence, indeed the GPS et al is to give first strike capability, not relaliation. If yopu want to hit a bunker before it launches you need great accuracy, because even a 0.1% error is a complete miss.

To hit a big city, or simply a region where lots of people live is very easy.

Iceland is/was a major target for Russian nukes because it has equipment vital to the defence of Europe in the event of a Russian attack.

As for Oz et al, you are more than 30 years behind the times on missiles. The Russians were the first to demonstrate a missile that could hit any point on Earth from either direction. They also still have bombers capable of flying anywhere and subs that can launch off the cost of any nation.

Cruise has a relatively short range which is one reason the Russians have never really gone for it.
The layout of allied nukes means that many are so close they can't easily hit the nearest bit of Russia, but are targetted further in, whereas Russian weapons are typically further away from their targets, hence their choice of typically longer ranged weapons. They also had better heavy lift capability, still do in fact.

I for one do not think its ok to tell countries that they cannot have nukes when they do. Hypocrasy!!!!!! I think the only way to legitimatly tell these people that they can't have them is for everyone else to drop theirs.

I am not naive, I know that this will never happen.

Domini I would be sad if Bush died. A lot of people would be. I am not his biggest fan. I think his foreign policy is so f**ked up. He has made me blindingly angry on many many occasions. However as so many have failed to notice because he has become everyone's favorite whipping boy domestically he has done some pretty wonderful things. No Child left behind, His extremly humane views on immigration which are not loved by his fellow Republicans and which I love and are long overdue, Faith based initiatives, He put two very competant people in the supreme court, His tax cuts have been a huge success. You should also not forget his abstinance programs in Africa which even has Bono and Geldof singing his praises. He is not the evil that everyone makes him out to be.

But if you don't have nukes then no-one listens to you...
Also, N.Korea has enough conventional artillery close to Seoul that their capital city would be utterly destryoed in hours.
My comment about Bush was that he is hated, not that he desrves to be.
I agree about his view on immigration, easily the best held by any important person in the US political system.

But you are in an amazingly small minority in seeing the US tax cuts as anything other than fiscal irresponsibility on a scale not seen since 1970s labour governments. Look at the collpase of the $, and worse is coming.

"Faith based initiatives" have helped subsidise paedophile gangs in the Catholic church, Jewish oppression of Arabs, denial of medical treatment to chidlren/victims of Chrsitan scientists, and Bizarro world teaching of "intelligent design".

As for abstinence, this is a sick joke. Doesn't work. Allowing Christians to posture about mortality wilst quite literally millions of kids die from AIDS, or are left to starve as orphans, but they're only niggers so who cares ?
At least their parents don't use condoms, because that would be real bad wouldn't it ? The kids should thank you personally, oh but they're far away, that's nice.
You up for abstinence ?
As I recall this is mumsnet, you conceived by immaculate conception ?

I'm with you

fgs of course I've read that N Korea have performed a successful nuclear test. But most countries test first and then build the weapons. They don't usually build several very expensive weapons and then dismantle them if testing fails.

Is that how you really think Christians think? Do you think I really don't care because they are "Niggers". That really offends me.Nobody with any sense thinks like that and I'm sure you know it.

His faith baised initiatives have helped Churches and the like benefit their communities. Church's have always been the main source of Charity and it was about time that the Government gave them a hand. I happen to believe that abstinance and monogamy do work. Its working there which is why he has gotten so much praise for it. I am not catholic and feel that condoms are fine, but I don't think its the answer. In the States the percetange of teenage pregnancy has fallen because abstinace is being promoted.

I also don't believe in raising taxes. It was one of his campaign promises to let people keep more of their money. Its also gone a long way twords helping small buisnessess.

but anyway, back to Iceland. Your argument is that we should have nukes because Iceland doesn't have them and Iceland might have been attacked. except it hasn't been. I think the one about Russia being shamed into decommisioning their nukes made more sense.

Can I just point out that CND's position was/is not 'if the 4th biggest nuclear power disarms, the Soviet Union will be shamed into doing the same"'. It's a broad movement, and members have a lot of different fundamental motivations, but predominantly most of them believe that nuclear weapons are wrong; that they're dangerous, that the damage they inflict isn't worth the risks, and that the risks of some sort of accident are far too great.

You may or may not agree with this position. But it certainly wasn't about shaming the USSR. I do actually know this stuff.

but Paula, doesn't the US have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world?

I doubt if any of the Christian groups use the word "nigger", many would ber shocked by it.
But I see it as more than a coincidence that the people they are foisting this brain damaged policy upon, aren't middle class white people.

Churches haven't been the "main source of Charity" since before you or I were born. They used to do some good this is true. But next time you go to chruch ask yourself just exactly where they got the money to build such a fine edifice. In Victorian times the large scale theft of charity money was such a big issue that ever since their involvement has always been at the margins. The entire Christian "charity" on thios country comes to rather less than the NHS in a midsized British city.

Abstinance doesn't work. Sad to say, nothing is working too well, but abstinence is up there with homeopathy and crystal healing.
As for the US experience you really need to read up on demographics. Look at the abortion rates, and simply the number of people in the teenage age range.
Just because something happened after, does not mean it was caused by it.
I don't believe in raising taxes, but Bush has had that effect. He's simply shifted the due-by date a couple of years.

There is a petition on the 10 Downing Street website that those of us who think that we should not be replacing Trident can sign.
here