Should the UK have Nuclear Submarines

[BetterTogether]

Last night Nicola Sturgeon stated that Trident was a red line for the SNP. Given that the United Kingdom as a whole is an Island Nation and traditionally seafaring. What are people's views on whether we should continue to have Nuclear Submarines within our Naval defence capabilities. Note that much ado is made of weapons of mass destruction but the reality is a submarine can carry any number of weapons not necessarily just nuclear warheads.Should we just dispense with having submarines or keep them but not allow them to carry nuclear weapons or some other

[RUNT]

Absolutely, we not only look after the U.K with Trident but our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth.In addition we protect those who are unable to protect themselves.Trident prevents a repeat of the Falklands for exampleAnyone who opposes Trident will loose my vote regardless of political ideology

[Oddquine]

Absolutely, we not only look after the U.K with Trident but our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth.In addition we protect those who are unable to protect themselves.Trident prevents a repeat of the Falklands for exampleAnyone who opposes Trident will loose my vote regardless of political ideology

No we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, because they are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Out of interest, how does having Trident prevent a repeat of the Falklands? Either we could use it against a country without a nuclear capability....or we could threaten to use it against a country without a nuclear capability........so just another instance of the UK playing the playground bully again. Care to describe the consequences if Argentina called our bluff and we nuked them just because we can, as the Americans did to Hiroshima and again at Nagasaki....to make a point to the Russians, not to the Japanese.........much like me going to Wick to kick the crap out of a punter there in order to make a point to somebody in Lybster. And care to make a guess as to the reaction of the 180 odd countries in the UN who don't have nuclear weapons but do have resources the UK might covet? Or do you think that is a good use of nuclear weapons, as a threat against countries which don't have any?

Trident has been described by former Vulcan squadron commander (the UK’s original nuclear deterrent) and current vice-president of CND, Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, as Britain’s “stick-on hairy chest” which implies more for show than anything else... so are you serious when you say protects us,our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth......... really?

I had intended to summarise the content of the article, but decided that there was too much detail and links to fit in in precis form........so it is here
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/

For those of you who won't read Wings on principle, (although the article wasn't written by the Rev Stu), you are missing a reasoned argument, with links to unbiased material, as to why Trident is a waste of money and simply offers us a false sense of security , which would be just as well served, by doing what the USA would prefer we did........ie sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, (as we would have to anyway if the nuclear option was ever initiated by any country with more than 40 bases which could release nuclear weapons.....like Russia), instead of pretending our pretty pathetic "independent" nuclear deterrent was of any real use if ever push came to shove, and pump our finite MOD resources instead into our conventional forces, which currently, in feet on the ground terms, consist of fewer members than the SNP does and which are woefully badly equipped. Think aircraft carriers sans aircraft to carry, for example.

The UK would be a lot better off if it stopped living in its imperial past and embraced its 21st century reality....which is as a small, relatively unimportant, nearly bankrupt country struggling to keep its own UK family together and with better things to spend its money on than an extremely expensive cosmetic stick-on hairy chest so that it can pretend to be as macho as it was in the 18th century.

[sids]

A chocolate teapot is no match for a hydrogen bomb.

[BetterTogether]

No we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, because they are as much use as a chocolate teapot. Out of interest, how does having Trident prevent a repeat of the Falklands? Either we could use it against a country without a nuclear capability....or we could threaten to use it against a country without a nuclear capability........so just another instance of the UK playing the playground bully again. Care to describe the consequences if Argentina called our bluff and we nuked them just because we can, as the Americans did to Hiroshima and again at Nagasaki....to make a point to the Russians, not to the Japanese.........much like me going to Wick to kick the crap out of a punter there in order to make a point to somebody in Lybster. And care to make a guess as to the reaction of the 180 odd countries in the UN who don't have nuclear weapons but do have resources the UK might covet? Or do you think that is a good use of nuclear weapons, as a threat against countries which don't have any? Trident has been described by former Vulcan squadron commander (the UK’s original nuclear deterrent) and current vice-president of CND, Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, as Britain’s “stick-on hairy chest” which implies more for show than anything else... so are you serious when you say protects us,our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth......... really?I had intended to summarise the content of the article, but decided that there was too much detail and links to fit in in precis form........so it is herehttp://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/For those of you who won't read Wings on principle, (although the article wasn't written by the Rev Stu), you are missing a reasoned argument, with links to unbiased material, as to why Trident is a waste of money and simply offers us a false sense of security , which would be just as well served, by doing what the USA would prefer we did........ie sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, (as we would have to anyway if the nuclear option was ever initiated by any country with more than 40 bases which could release nuclear weapons.....like Russia), instead of pretending our pretty pathetic "independent" nuclear deterrent was of any real use if ever push came to shove, and pump our finite MOD resources instead into our conventional forces, which currently, in feet on the ground terms, consist of fewer members than the SNP does and which are woefully badly equipped. Think aircraft carriers sans aircraft to carry, for example. The UK would be a lot better off if it stopped living in its imperial past and embraced its 21st century reality....which is as a small, relatively unimportant, nearly bankrupt country struggling to keep its own UK family together and with better things to spend its money on than an extremely expensive cosmetic stick-on hairy chest so that it can pretend to be as macho as it was in the 18th century.

Ok all very nice and the usual argument against nuclear weapons but you see this is where the problem lay.

We aren't discussing whether or not the UK should have nuclear weapons the issue being discussed without all the misinformation flying about is whether we replace 4 Nuclear submarines nothing to do with the weapon system held within them.
So the big argument is not whether we scrap nuclear weapons but whether we scrap having submarines.
If your answer happens to be yes then we may as well scrap our whole surface fleet and leave the waters around this island unprotected.
Aircraft carriers without planes is one thing a navy without submarines is another.

Knowledge of politics is one thing knowledge of defence matters is quite another.

[Fulmar]

Where does the 'nearly bankrupt country' come from? That describes Greece but by no stretch (of my imagination anyway) does it describe the UK. Do you yourself know of anyone who is bankrupt and how many of them are there? All I can say is that I do not.

[Fulmar]

[QUOTE=Fulmar;1115681]Where does the 'nearly bankrupt country' come from? That describes Greece but by no stretch (of my imagination anyway) does it describe the UK. Do you yourself know of anyone who is bankrupt and how many of them are there? All I can say is that I do not.[/Further to that, if we are bankrupt, then how come so many folk from other lands are not only falling over themselves to come here but many of them are sadly losing or risking their lives to do so. They would be going the other way, wouldn't they!
To go back to the purpose of the thread, I do not know anything much about submarines and whether we could get away with having ones that were not nuclear powered or not, but I do think that whether we like it or not (and lets face it, we all hate war and conflict and so not wish it to happen) they are necessary. We know that there is someone with ill-disguised aggression in charge at the Kremlin whose planes and subs are patrolling round our shores and I like to think that we have something available to shadow these and to escort them off the premises!QUOTE]

[Oddquine]

Where does the 'nearly bankrupt country' come from? That describes Greece but by no stretch (of my imagination anyway) does it describe the UK. Do you yourself know of anyone who is bankrupt and how many of them are there? All I can say is that I do not.

Well, logically, given that Osborne said, as he was proclaiming his cuts in 2010 that Today is the day when Britain steps back from the brink......and further given that he has, as yet, met not one of his targets (except maybe in the rolling back of the welfare state and the increase in dividends for the many MPs and ministers with shares in and connections with, private health care companies), the austerity cuts after 2015 are to be even bigger than forecast in 2010 and the national debt is still being added to annually with regular monotony....... then that brink is still looming, is it not..........hence the "nearly" ? Or are you telling me that Osborne lied through his teeth?

Any individual/family living on overdraft,and borrowing on credit card to make its payments of the overdraft and mortgage interest, as their hours are cut and their income drops would certainly have to apply for bankruptcy or alternatively drastically cut back their spending. I know a country is not an individual family, before anyone shoots in and tells me....but if it were, nearly bankrupt would fairly describe the UK...but as it isn't, just what terrible brink has Osborne not yet managed to pull us back from which was horrific enough to require the trashing of the disadvantaged, the enriching of the already rich, the sale of the few assets the UK still has, and the part privatising of the NHS.......if it wasn't the brink of default on borrowing?

And, Better Together, re the submarines..I can't see much point in them tbh....but if they would be useful in defence without nuclear warheads, then I have no real problem with having a couple or so, but I do think we should be putting aircraft on our aircraft carrier first.....don't you?