You say disarmament, I say renewal

[studentmadwife80]

Why is it when the USA and Russia do something amazing, a pledge to reduce nuclear weapons, does our government refuse to mention, during budget announcements, the almost £100billion on renewing nuclear weapons. Surely all the closures to the NHS, increased classroom sizes, unemployment, and university costs could all be aided if we followed suit and saved this money.

Nuclear weapons are the reason our troops originally went to Irag, hello they were in our backyard all along!!
Surely everyone here can think of a million, if not 100 billion better things to spend that money on!

Both Brown and Cameron want Trident renewal, but Clegg doesn't! Maybe we need to make sure Labour and Tories know we don't want these weapons either!!

Of course they would. No-one wants a nuclear war. Don't you think if any of them would lob nukes with abandon they would have done so by now. There have been plenty of excuses.

It's really not in anyone's interest to use them. Any nuclear armed country attacked would just attack back. Unfortunately some countries like Iran really don't seem to grasp this fact and seem to think it is entirely appropriate to wipe out certain nations.

Great name IRCBIB - I do too!

'The genie is out of the bottle with how to build nuclear devices and other WMDs. You can't get rid of that knowledge. Even if we all got rid of our nuclear weapons, someone somewhere could and probably would make more. Even if all the knowledge of how to make these weapons was destroyed, someone, now it has been done, will work out how to do it again.'

Completely agree scaryteacher, and actually it's Bumperlicious, I'm still wearing my Masterchef name , sorry, I don't really read cookery books in bed but it's what all the Masterchef contestants say!

Thought I'd found a fellow cook book addict!

No, I do love them, but not in bed!I've just had the Hummingbird one given to me for my birthday, can't wait to try it out (though it doesn't get good reviews on amazon, lots of mistakes apparently).

By the way, it's not true to say that Nick Clegg doesn't want Trident. At least that's not the version of the Lib Dems' defence spokesman, who says that they simply don't think the decision needs to be taken now on the grounds that current Trident's life can be extended. The current MOD/defence establishment disputes this, so it seems more like a copout not to have to commit one way o the other to me.

Ah well, he'd better get that message to Nick Harvey - see p14 of this transcript

But stewie's mum has made such a valid point. Renewing trident is not only taking money away from frontline staff, education, and our environment but it's ILLEGAL!!

Renewing Trident is not taking money away from frontline staff and education and never has been - it is from the DEFENCE budget as opposed to the EDUCATION budget - so that I'm afraid is a meaningless argument. You could equally argue the failure to tackle benefit fraud takes away from frontline staff and education. What are serving Forces personnel if not frontline staff anyway?

Renewing Trident is not illegal, don't be naive. If we are not increasing the number of warheads (and the proposal is to lessen the number of warheads and drop to three instead of four bombers), then we are not outwith the treaty, as we are not proliferating (increasing) what we have.

There wont be a nuclear war, in the west, it would be more likely to be in the middle east with Israel and one of its arab neighbors exchanging a few missiles.

The biggest threat to us is a lone maniac with a suitcase nuke, there huge amounts of weapons grade plutonium gone missing in Russia after the collapse of communism, all easily bought if you have the readies.

Having said that, its still pretty low likelihood. Its more likely that a biological or chemical weapon would be used, and its hundreds of times more likely to just to be a van pack with fertiliser and diesel fuel.

You planning an attack on Brussels then Linc? Let me know, so I can get me and mine well out of the way!

I'm not naive scary, I'm just being honest. Are you a politician by any chance? It is illegal, maybe you need to reread the treaty!

It is indiscriminate in that it doesn't just kill one area, it travels and destroys, it cannot be used unless you want the world to end, and we can't afford to waste that kind of money on weapons that are pointless and immoral.

Being a strong country isn't measured by your out of date weapons, but by your people. And if you think we can afford to spend £97billion of this "defence" budget, then You can explian to our frontline men and women why we couldn't afford to protect our troops who are fighting and dying from a war on oil that we couldn't afford the equipment they needed to remain safe because we have these super duper war heads floating round. You explian to the mums on here whose children are signing up that they better start saving for their own equipment. Do you not watch question time or listen to families affected by war? These men and women are dying for what exactly? And with what protection?
I must say again how completly shocked I am, this is a network of people who care and influence new life right? Now that is scary!

I'm not naive scary, I'm just being honest. Are you a politician by any chance? It is illegal, maybe you need to reread the treaty!

It is indiscriminate in that it doesn't just kill one area, it travels and destroys, it cannot be used unless you want the world to end, and we can't afford to waste that kind of money on weapons that are pointless and immoral.

Being a strong country isn't measured by your out of date weapons, but by your people. And if you think we can afford to spend £97billion of this "defence" budget, then You can explian to our frontline men and women why we couldn't afford to protect our troops who are fighting and dying from a war on oil that we couldn't afford the equipment they needed to remain safe because we have these super duper war heads floating round. You explian to the mums on here whose children are signing up that they better start saving for their own equipment. Do you not watch question time or listen to families affected by war? These men and women are dying for what exactly? And with what protection?
I must say again how completly shocked I am, this is a network of people who care and influence new life right? Now that is scary!

Unfortunately while Russia remains unstable and Iran, North Korea et al have these weapons, and the means to deliver them, we need to think to our response if they fire nukes at us. It will not be long until these smaller players have the missile technology to reach Europe.

Do we maintain a deterrent nuclear force to dissaude the use of nukes against us?

Do we bin our independent deterrent and end up even more beholden to the yanks?

Do we pour massive investment into ballistic missile defence?

Personally I incline to option 2. We've got our tongue stuck firmly in the American's hoop as it is, a couple more inches won't make any difference. It's time to stop pretending that Britain is still Great, its not, Gordon and Tony made sure of that.

MOD are - £35bn in the defence budget, so £97bn can't really be that available! especially with two conflicts where basic equipment seems to be hard to find!

I spent three of the best years of my life in the army and am currently a reservist, expecting to be called to duties in Afghanistan before too long.

I disagree with the view that members of the armed forces want nuclear weapons. To the troops on the ground they are irrelvant. They are political instruments for political purposes, and have no realistic military use.

What troops want is the best equipment to do the jobs that we are asked to do, and also the knowledge that if we ask for new equipment to perform a certain role, we will get it.

Defence is all about managing threats. When resources are limited (as they always will be) we need to prioritise. It's more important to spend money addressing the real threats that we know about - fundamentalism, cyber-warfare - than vague uncertainties in the distant future.

Nuclear weapons didn't stop 9/11, or the Falklands War come to that. They are not the only means of deterring an enemy. Well equipped, professional armed forces are more flexible and by working in partnership with other nations have addressed all the military challenges we have faced since the end of the Cold War.

'And if you think we can afford to spend £97billion of this "defence" budget, then You can explian to our frontline men and women why we couldn't afford to protect our troops who are fighting and dying from a war on oil that we couldn't afford the equipment they needed to remain safe because we have these super duper war heads floating round. You explian to the mums on here whose children are signing up that they better start saving for their own equipment. Do you not watch question time or listen to families affected by war? These men and women are dying for what exactly? And with what protection?'

As the sister of a front line Naval Officer currently deployed in Afghanistan, who is also a nuclear submariner; and the wife for 24 years of another nuclear submariner who has served for 30 years, and someone who was born into a Naval family, with my Dad also serving for 35 years, then I don't need to make the explanations to the troops, they can make the arguments for themselves. I would count myself as part of a family affected by war - indeed for much of the 80s and 90s both my dh and db were at sea in submarines on the front line. Front lines do not just exist on land - defence for the UK is both on and under the water and in the air as well.

There are the weapons that the 'troops' need to fight now; those that they will need to face conflicts in whatever form they come in the future (and there is no guarantee what shape those conflicts will appear in), and strategic weapons which keep the balance of power and peace.

Jennyvee - 'It's more important to spend money addressing the real threats that we know about - fundamentalism, cyber-warfare - than vague uncertainties in the distant future.' As you well know, procurement starts now for those 'vague uncertainties', and it seems to me to be better to have a spread of weapons, rather than only one and to find that it is the wrong one. Fundamentalism cannot be fought by weapons, but by winning 'hearts and minds' although against certain types of fundamentalism, nothing will prevail, and NATO are well down the cyber warfare track already and we are a part of that.

Also, 'have addressed all the military challenges we have faced since the end of the Cold War.' you need add 'to date' to that sentence. Russia is rearming quietly, Putin will be President again, and I agree with the first paragraph of 5helt1e's post. We need to keep our nuclear defences.

I've read the FCO take on the treaty - doesn't say that replacing Trident is illegal at all - it also states that India, Pakistan and Israel haven't signed it out of the 'nuclear' states. I'm not too alarmed about India or Israel, but I am about Pakistan and now Iran.

And yes, Studentmadwife, I think you are incredibly naive, and probably quite young as well. Defence is not all black and white, there are shades of grey to be considered. You also have it wrong that a weapon is immoral, it is a THING, it has no more morals than a chair. Certainly people can be immoral, or their actions, but a weapon like a chair is just a thing.

From what I heard, the bad thing was that Trident was excluded from the military budget review (and there had not been one for some time). I'm coming back later to re-read the thread.

Personally while in favour of nuclear power for electricity (despite having once been a founder member of my local Friends of the Earth), I am very much against the spending over many years on Trident without considering alternative options.

I'm not particularly supportive of nuclear warheads to be frank, but for now can see that unilaterally scrapping them isn't an option for any political party.

Why?

Who are you going to fire your nuclear warheads AT?

Not the USA
Not Russia
Not China
Not Pakistan
Not Israel
Not N Korea
Not Iran even.

Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent any more, because the only people they would deter are cold war enemies with the same capability, and there are no longer any of those left.

There will be no more large set battle like in WW2, the nature of war has changed radically by then. WW3 will be fought with satellite killer drones, and robot tanks and airplanes, you need to check moderm weaponry!

There isnt a singler nation on the planet, posibly apart from Israel, that would risk the destruction of its civil infrastructure and seven digit civilian casualties in even a limited nuclear exchange.

It will be my remote controlled drones, robot tanks and network hackers vs yours next time. Plus the odd looney or spy with a suitcase nuke.

We need to be tooling up for guerilla war using stars wars technology. Its a proven lesson from history that we weapon up for the previous war, eg by 1920 we were superbly equipped to fight WW1, ditto in 1950 we had devastating military superiority should WW2 break out again.

We absolutely do not need nukes, its yesterdays weapon. What we do need is nanotechnolgy, robotics and AI.

Lincstash - Russia is unstable and rearming, and it does have nuclear weapons.

'WW3 will be fought with satellite killer drones, and robot tanks and airplanes, you need to check moderm weaponry!' Modern weaponry also includes tomahawk which are submarine delivered missiles; the technology used in delivering smart bombs still needs a platform from which to deliver them, submarines and planes for example.

Do you not think that the Military might just know what they are doing? We might need nanotechnology, robotics and AI, but until we have them and they are proven in the field, it is stupid to get rid of nuclear weapons and stand there with with no defences. We may be fighting some people with nanotechnology etc, but not others and as I said before to put all our eggs in one basket is daft; we need a broad armoury with a variety of weapons on which to draw.

I think Iran would risk a limited nuclear strike to get Israel off the map, and the fundamentalists in Pakistan if they ever got their hands on the nuclear weapons.

Russia may be unstable, not sure I accept rearming, but seems to me far more likely they would use arms against former (or continuing) republics than the West, knowing the backlash would leave them worse off.

Who do you suggest they might attack, scaryteacher, and what would they be hoping to achieve?

Western Europe are customers of fuel, potential tourists and so on, and I don't really see them wanting to attack the EU either financially or with armaments.

USA is a possible target, but even the Russians would not consider doing so, unless they were intent on bringing most human life, worldwide, to an end.

China would hit back, if necessary by marching survivors into Russia and simply shooting anyone they met who appeared to support Soviet views.

Who else would they consider attacking?

They are spending lots on upgrading weaponry especially submarines. Putin was KGB and he hasn't changed a bit. Look at Georgia last year. They have 'lost' the Warsaw pact countries (many of whom are now in NATO) and want to extend their sphere of influence again.

I know that Latvia is worried about this and I suspect the other Baltic states are too.

Being a 'customer' cuts both ways. I would like to see better energy security via nuclear power stations in the UK, and not be dependant upon Russia, who could decide to turn the taps off at any time, as they did last year.

As I said earlier, having nuclear weapons is like having an insurance policy - one hopes that you won't need it, but you keep paying it for peace of mind - the same applies here.

Ah yes, the Tomahawk. The SUB SONIC, cruise missile develpoed in the early 1970's.

Have you got any idea how easy they are to take out with a stealth fighter or a MIM-104 Patriot? Its not even a fair fight.

In about 5 years, you will be able to shoot it out the sky with ALPHA, the flying platform based killer laser, without even breaking into a sweat.

Let me explain about fission warheads. Most of them nowadays are fusion-boosted fission weapons derived from a design known as the Hollw Pit Swan Design. In the centre isa core of duterium/tritium. The core boosts the yield, but has a snag, in that if the bomb sits there, it poison the outer fissile layers, and after about 10 years, the bomb has to be junked and rebuilt.

Theres only 3 places in the world that can make enough weapons grade tritium to keep up with bomb production. China has a plant. The US use to have a plant but its closed. The Russian plant disintegrated because of the collapse of communism. Russia may well be disarming, but its not building new nukes, the best it can manage will be basic Fat Boy atomic fission design. There descending into battlefield device scales.

Russias nukes are getting smaller and less dangerous.......