Should Trident be scrapped?

Yes, but theres many vested interests, it wont be scrapped if lib dems get in or not

NO. It should not be scrapped.

History has shown us that we cannot completely rely on NATO or America to protect British Interest. We need NUKES.

While there are mad men running countries in the world Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Iran, Kim Il-sung of North Korea and Gordon Brown of the UK. Of course we need these weapons. Remeber, they act as a deterrent.

The reason we need Trident is basic. For a NUKES to have a global reach, we need those subs. The developement of long ranch delivery systems would cost to much money (and we would be braking a couple of treaties, wouldn't we?). The development of long range bombers would also be expensive.

Its a myth that there is a cheaper system, created by Nick Clegg to hide his CND stand on NUKES.

There will never be a NUKE free world.

No it should not - the Liberals are not taking our defence seriously

We have to keep trident, as we do not know what the future will hold it is best to cover for all eventualities. Like the club owner said who needs a doorman we get no trouble in here now so sack the doorman. A month after when the word got put round in comes the trouble makers and you have the worst club in the town. So the people keep out and the club has to close. You cannot get a trident just like that. We have to keep the best defence we can just because we cannot see the need does not mean there is not one. Any bully boys who think they can push us around, will have to think again.

There probably are better alternatives out there but I'm sure I recall Nick Clegg stating he'd scrap it and not replace it at all. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

As a retired army officer myself, I do agree with the generals.

The cost of replacing trident is ridiculous, and conventional warfare is where we need to address our defence budget.

Trident is a misplaced concept in the 21st century, and I applaud the Lib Dems for being brave enough to put this forward.

No, we should never give up our independent nuclear capability and leave us at the mercy of others to protect us or us to act as a deterrent for us.

A friend of mine has a painted biscuit tin hanging on a nail outside his house. He's never been burgled. All the deterrent value of a real burglar alarm, without the expense.
So instead of wasting £80 billion on real nuclear missiles, why not just make some hollow metal shells and release lots of photos of them? They'll never actually be put to the test anyway, so it's a complete waste of money to make weapons that will never be fired. But if people think we have them, they'll still work as a deterrent.

And to those who think lying about having weapons of mass destruction won't work, well it successfully prevented Saddam Hussein's Iraq from being invaded by his neighbours for many years. If he hadn't overdone it and been perceived as a threat by the West, then he'd still be safe and snug behind his smokescreen even now.

No I don't think any cost is worth it.

Even if a country such as Iran made these weapons and decided of all places our little island is first on their hit list they would go ahead regardless of whether we could retaliate. And not that it would matter cause we’d all be dead but other countries would do so on our behalf (to avoid getting hit themselves).

I am far more worried about these obscene weapons being stolen by terrorists or going off by mistake.

Should Trident be scrapped? If it will lead to more unemployment in Great Britain, then no.

Nukes for the UK would not be about defence (we are protected after all by NATO) but about prestige. We want to stay in the nuclear club and the UN Security Council even if it means a higher tax burden on the already over-stretched UK public. National pride costs money, and thanks to New Labour's profligacy, we don't have any left. Even worse is India and Pakistan who have a population rife with poverty and illiteracy, people there are literally dying of hunger, but they pour money into nuclear weapons (and in India's case a space program) - all for bragging rights. Human nature is pathetic really.

Useless piece of garbage. If we use it we all die. If we don't we've wasted zillions of pounds of tax-payers money.
When Argentina invaded the Falklands did they worry about Britain's nuclear arsenal? When Saddam invaded Kuwait was he sitting in Baghdad fretting over our WMD?
No, they weren't. This preposterous pile of over-priced tin is designed and built to line the pockets of the companies who make. Or rather the bosses of those companies.
Waken up people!

It's a cold war relic that clearly doesn't deter any of the modern threats with which we are faced. If the US wants us to have Trident, let the US pay for it. If we have to pay for it, scrap it. £80bn would go quite some way to plugging the huge gap between what this country can afford to spend on important things like health, education and infrastructure, and what it actually spends under the delusion that it is still a 'world power' rather than a second-tier European country.

Trident should never have been bought in the first place.

The only worthwhile nuclear deterrent is an independent nuclear deterrent, Trident is just a way for the Americans to have more of their nuclear weapons based around the world without breaking the nuclear treaties they have with Russia, and it is also a very clever way of getting us to pay for their nuclear defence.

We should either have an independent nuclear deterrent, start a joint EU nuclear deterrent program or abandon nuclear weapons entirely. I'd prefer option 3 but sadly this is never going to happen.

Whatever option we go for we do not need nuclear submarines circling the globe just in case the Cold War starts up again. This is far too expensive and doesn't offer any protection against the type of threats we face in the modern world.
The Cold War is over and that means we no longer need Cold War weapons.

Keeping Trident, or a like for like replacement, makes about as much sense as the Navy building a new fleet of Dreadnoughts. They're out of date, prohibitively expensive and do not offer any additional protection to the people of the UK.

This is yet another very good reason to vote for the Lib Dems, they're the only party that have listened to the Armed Forces and are willing to spend money on what the military think is right for the defence of our nation, not what the politicians think will give them the best headlines or get them the best photo opportunity when they visit Washington.

Probably, as to be honest the country can not afford it. Other countries such as Italy, Germany and Holland don't have nuclear weapons and they are all richer than us.
We are very unlikely to ever use them, as quite frankly if we ever had to the world would be coming to an end. The only issue then is by having them does it discourage other countries from attacking us. Probably yes, but then if a dictator had them he might attack anyway, particularly if he has nothing to lose.

Generals have always hated having a weapon costing them money which they cannot ever use. It is not a military weapon, it is, and always has been a political weapon. By all means remove it from the military budget, and add it onto the home office, but get rid of it? What, when the likes of North Korea are actively developing them?

I would argue that nuclear weapons have done more for peace than anything else. It is stable countries like our own which need them, particularly when so many countries are flouting anti nuclear-proliferation laws.

Yes I would scrap Trident, it is no deterant in the modern world, mainly because any foreign power / terrorist organisation will be aware the spineless mob we have in our political class do have the big brass ones needed to use it under any circumstances.

Trident has two targets, hardened missile silos & cities, the first are mostly all decommsioned and as for the second, see above

I would rather see the money spent on better conventional equiped conventional forces, and perhaps a more real deterant in the form a cruise missile based system, small low yeild warheads. something that there is a possibility, however slim, with extreme provocation we may actually use.

It would also have the advantage of being land/air/sea/ submarine launced & air portable, therefore flexible.

Of course Trident should be scrapped.

DickChambers69 says we need NUKES. Why exactly? They will never be used. We all know that a nuclear war will be the end of civilisation as we know it.

The sooner all nuclear weapons are dismantled the better.

Trident is not a deterrent, never was and never will be. There has never been A bigger waste of money in the history of these islands. Britain has been attacked by terrorists and continues to fight unnecessary wars abroad. None of our real or made-up enemies are afraid of nukes because they all know they cannot be used. Get real!

4. At 11:45am on 21 Apr 2010, DickChambers69 wrote:
There will never be a NUKE free world

You think ?

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".
Albert Einstein.

Yes, of course Trident should be consigned to the graveyard.

Only those with a vested interest in its future survival are clamouring for its retention and ultimate replacement.

We are no longer a world power. We have become an insignificant little nation with very limited ability to influence anyone and are, in consequence, no threat whatever to other countries. The US would like us to keep it going because we have become, in their eyes, part of their outer defences.

Just think where we could spend these billions once the next government has cleared up the mess Labour leaves behind every time.

Definitely not. Britain needs a nuclear deterrent so that the invasion/attack of the UK mainland by a nation state is unthinkable. It also enhances Britain's diplomatic abilities within the world. It's also a myth that there's a cheaper alternative. A myth created by the Lib Dems to make their policy seem more palatable.

I question whether having nuclear arms keeps a nation safe. For a start if you instigate a nuclear attack you know full well there will most certainly be a retaliation. Recent history has shown that wars have been continued to be fought in the 'normal' manner and that as yet no country has dared to fire off their missiles for fear of being blown to smithereens themselves.

Quite honestly whats the use of a deterrent that you can't use. Every nation knows this fact and all the posturing about lowering the number of war heads is just nonsense.

I have long wondered why the UK and USA get so uptight about the nuclear power of others when it was them that started the whole sorry saga. This 'do as I say and not as I do' attitude is wearing a bit thin.

We are told that the country is in debt and that cuts in public services are required to pay off this debt. Perhaps, if Trident is cut the money saved could be used to pay the person(s) to whom we owe this debt. After all, debts have to be paid to those we have borrowed from - whoever they are. Or are we being fed a load of economicists nonsense and there is plenty to spend on weapons and welfare of the rich.

YES.

Generals? What about asking some Admirals? The three armed services have always been at loggerheads over defence spending as they want their own respective service to get the lion's share.

and don't rreplace it.

Trident should only be scrapped if the people of this country truly want to see our international position reduced to that of a third world banana republic - whoops half way there already!

On a serious note however MoD, like this Government, are notorious for under estimating costs. Controls must be put in place to ensure delivery on time and on budget with penalties for failure in any contracts. Common sense, but apparently not in MoD-land.

Look pretending that Trident is anything but a bargaining chip with loony failed states is silly. So whats wrong with outfitting a couple of Scudd missiles with cheap warheads and using that as the bargaining chip. The idea that anybody but the Americans Russians or Chinese are going to use a retaliatory nuclear weapon is ridiculous. Spend the one hundred billion that is going to be wasted on Trident on my cancer treatment or expect to be voted out of power.

The fanciful idea that the decision about Trident will be made either in the UK, or by the UK, is a real good laugh.
I'm almost wetting myself even just thinking about it - just like everyone at the Pentagon and The White House.

Scrapping the UK's nuclear deterrent would speak volumes about the UK's current situation and the damage that Labour has done to the country in the last 13 years.

Brown / Labour have have starved the military of funds, despite two major conflicts, and then lied about it. They hate the armed forces.

The UK has been wrecked by Labour - and Clegg will finish the job if he has the opportunity. Then, with the City and manufacturing destroyed, we will become like Portugal - but without the sunshine.

This is the one thing that puts me off voting Lib dem, we have to keep a deterrent as horrible as nukes are I for one do not want to live in an unprotected country with the loose cannons of the Axis of evil still in power.

Currently the only European countries with a nuclear deterrent are the UK and France. If nuclear war breaks out with one of the other non-nuclear countries we're going to see fall out anyway. I don't see why the UK would be a particularly special target in Europe?

Yes - why don't we work more closely with Europe, particularly France?

Trident is a cold war relic, get rid of it S.A.P. put the money saved, into care of the old and sick in the commuity.

I am definitely against unilateral disarmament, but I do have questions about Trident.

Couldn't our nukes be launched on cruise missiles, or from bombers?

The people most likely to threaten us with nukes are more likely to use 'terrorist' tactics, putting them on lorries in London, or in a container arriving in a dock.

Surely we could be 'creative', too! Or at least make any potential enemy think we were.

This infighting between the services has been underway since the Navy lost its place as the defence priority in the rearmament programs of the late 30's.

These Generals are simple banking on the US being prepared to defend us from a nuclear attack so they can keep their own pet weapon projects and maintain the size of the army in the pending defence cuts.

I hope the politicians remember that when in the mid 60's they jumped on the RAF Bandwagon of the UK not needing fixed wing aircraft carriers, less than two decades later UK servicemen where dying in the Falklands War because of the assumption that the Royal Navy would only conduct major operations outside home waters in conjunction with either RAF or US air cover. As we all know the RAF had no ability to protect the Navy more than 500 miles from Ascension island (3500 miles short) and their was no sign of the US coming to our rescue with one of its carrier groups.

Its been proven time and time again in history that you need a top down approach in defence, by having an effective nuclear deterrent we eliminate the risk of having a nuclear confrontation with another state nuclear state. Then you can think about how you will deter or control a conventional confrontation, but without the 4 Aces the 4 Trident submarines give us to play in any confrontation we are totally dependant on the US coming to our rescue if another state plays its Nuclear card against us.

Trident is simply the most cost effective way of providing an effective nuclear deterrent, cheaper solutions such as Cruise Missiles have the neither the range or ability to penetrate air defences if used in the small numbers Nick Clegg dreams of.

Trident has had its day and is now an expensive, obsolete dinosaur.
We should spend our defence budget on things that actually work, better armour and rifles for the troops would be a good start. A few Hunter Killer subs with nuclear tipped cruise missiles is more than adequate.

"A deterrant from what?" is my question. As far as I can tell there are three supposed threats:

1) "Mad" world leaders like Ahmedinejad. Well besides the fact that there's little psychiatric evidence that the person is actually insane and incapable of reason, our nukes didn't stop Gaddafi from state-sponsored terrorism. They also failed to stop Argentina from annexing the Falklands (because they knew full well we'd never retaliate by levelling Buenos Aires). They only stop pre-emptive strikes from other nuclear states (MAD, baby!), however you don't just blow up another country and render it inhabitable for centuries without your own defensive reasons.

2) Al Queda. Great, who do we point our missiles at? Nukes failed to stop 9/11; they've failed to stop all manner of terrorism, from the IRA to Chechens in Russia.

3) You never know what might happen. Well that's the best argument so far: fear of the unknown. Based on that we might as well install a Star Wars system at a cost of trillions, and move the population permanently into underground bunkers. And then set up a second Star Wars system with the guns pointing outwards, because you never know, evil Space Aliens may decide to invade. It's just rubbish - an argument of fear over reason.

This issue requires a balanced judgement taking in many factors, and as such, can't be made to suit short term party politics or electioneering.

Whilst there are leaders in the world with the wealth, power, will and ideology to create and use nuclear weapons against us, we need a deterrant. The idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has served us well.

But it is not Russia or China any more that are the threat, with their long range ICBMs, but other countries (Iran, Pakistan etc) who are engaged in an arms race with their neighbours, and whose technology could be acquired by extremists and used against us.

Using Trident missiles would not be an appropriate response to such an attack; we would not erase a capital city from the face of the earth. We would probably go in with conventional or small tactical nuclear weapons to completely destroy military and political facilities, not population centres.

We still have to 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. Countries that are ideologically opposed to us do respect military might - that is why we face guerilla warfare and insurgency rather than set piece battles. So we still need a 'big weapon' to express our ability and will to protect outselves and strike back at any aggressor. And our relationship with the US requires us to behave as a partner, not a puppet. But is Trident right for this role?

On balance, I would probably scrap Trident and put the money into superbly equipped and trained, fast response combined force tactical units, that can respond to threats to our interests rapidly and effectively.

Trident should not be scrapped. We need a nuclear deterrent and it would cost too much to replace it.

Yes it should be scrapped, we do not have an independant deterrant, the Americans would have to give permission to use Trident, so why pay for America's arsenal? The money could be better spent, maybe our politicians could get a better expenses account or a much needed pay rise, maybe even both the poor souls!

Is the £80 billion cost of replacing Trident justified? NO.

Would scrapping the nuclear submarine system have long-term consequences for the position of the UK on the world stage? NO.

Are there other alternatives that could be considered? YES.

We have enough dangerous dogs and people to frighten off any would be invader. And cardboard cut outs are back in vogue. All the rage in politics at the moment.

The correct approach is to stop other Nations developing nuclear weapons, not to start another arms race. The relationship with the US is no longer special, and just when has the US brought peace to the world, post WW-II anyway - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Spend Trident money on Space exploration or some other useful cause - the cold war is over if you hadn't noticed. Conventional weapons are the ones being used now and some nations should be reduced to bows and arrows considering their genocidal tendancies.

Whilst I am concerned about the cost of trident, both Gordon Brown and David Cameron were absolutely right that our country still faces a potential threat from countries like North Korea, Iran and even China. If other countries are in possession of nuclear weapons then Britain should too - it's better to be safe than sorry therefore I disagree with Nick Clegg's argument on this issue.

Just to set the record straight, despite what Nick Clegg alluded to in the first leadership debate, the Lib Dem policy is to replace Trident with an alternative nuclear weapon system - not to get rid of it altogether! I certainly agree the situation needs reviewing, but we need a nuclear weapons system of some description. Also Nick doesn't say whether the alternative will cost less ... or more ... than Trident.

Are we bigger nuclear power or country then Soviet Union?
USSR expreience proves, nukes never save even superpowers. People would love to die for a country to save it from any forign attacks, only if it takes care of it. Spend this huge sum of money which is taken from our pay slips, on NHS, councils, schools. Then see how ppl feel proud to be British, when they dont need to wait long on NHS lists, when their kids having good education &future.
I'm not LibDem supporter or Clegg's fan, but I strongly believe that Trident or ID Cards are very expensive ways to feel protected.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

To try to dissuade would be enemies by convincing them of your peaceful intentions by a lack of preparation for war has never been a good defence policy. Hoping aggressors can be persuaded to imitate your pacifist example is naive and has never worked.
The cost of our nuclear deterrent is only a small part of our defence budget when discounted over its several decades of use besides what price can you put on national security. International relations are increasingly volatile - a nuclear deterrent is if anything more essential now than it was in the cold war.

#16. At 12:08pm on 21 Apr 2010, Buck_Turgidson wrote:
"Trident should never have been bought in the first place."

I thought you wanted one of "them Doomsday machines", General.

Of course it should be scrapped - perhaps we should recall than these WMD's were designed for use during the Cold War. This was something that ended a year or so after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union/Iron Curtain. The Cold War ended about 20 years ago, so the logic of spending billions on a weapon whose only pertinence was for that war seems skewed.

As the 1991 Gulf conflict and events in the former Yugoslavia demonstrate, military operations tend to be International and under the UN. As for the war crime that was not backed by the UN, it just shows that being aligned to the USA regardless hasn't really panned out.

We should also note that the existence of Trident had no bearing on 7/7 - the bombings occurred regardless of this weapon. I'm with the Obama-route and think it's time for countries to disarm - especially in the case of Israel (which would make it fair to ensure that Iran does not go nuclear).

The UK has been in decline since we went into debt to the US following WWII. The Empire is gone and we're a minor country with a sense of self-importance that seems to justify spending billions on something to keep up with the major countries. Since we've been aligned to US foreign policy, why would we need independent arms of this nature? Or if we're members of the UN, why should we worry - if attacked, the other members come to our defence (see Kuwait 1991). Further more, following the abortions in the Middle East that Blair followed Dubya into, shouldn't we be aligned to Europe?

In these times where we hear of the army not having basic equipment, is it moral to waste money on a weapon that would theoretically be used...and if used would probably be a war crime? As there are a mass of areas under-resourced and an incoming mass of cuts to the public sector, wasting money on this and ID cards seems odd. The Lib-Dems may get my vote on these two policies alone...

If the question is "do we need Trident?" then the answer which may once have been "yes" is now a "no". Trident was a toy to keep the UK in the big-boys' club in the 80s.
However, if the question is "Do we need nuclear weapons?" then the answer might be different.
The deterrent value is nothing against madmen who don't care if they die as long as they take us with them - but there are less mad nations out there with whom we either have disputes or have had disputes.
For example, what might happen in the Falklands if we gave up our nuclear weapons? The USA cannot be relied on in this issue as they support Argentina in this issue, really. The discovery of an economically viable oil field might trigger rash Argentine action.

And I for one am uncomfortable with the potential state of affairs whereby a non-NATO country (France) has 300 nuclear weapons and we have none. France consistently opposes UK policies in the united nations and has vehemently defended its right to nuclear weapons, perhaps more mindful of how aggressive Germans can become. France would be the only European nation with nuclear weapons. What would that do to the balance of power in the UN & the EEC?

What would happen if the UK were to side with the USA in another situation similar to Iraq 2003 and France opposed it?

What would happen if Quebec became a violent problem despite a continuing lack of democratic mandate for independence?

There are just too many ways in which the UK would become either a dependant slave of the USA or pushed around by others for me to suggest that losing our nuclear weapons is a good idea.

NO.

These weapons are not to win a war - they are to hit back.

Germany profitted immensly following WWII since they were not allowed to keep an army and had to invest that budget elsewhere.

I suggest we do the same. Trident was ok during the Cold War - if we get shut now and become profitable as a result, Russia, China and USA will follow suit.

What really concerns me about this issue is the assertion that 'We don't need Trident'. The key with defence issues is not to leave yourself in a position where you can only fight the last war properly. At the present time we have a world of low intensity and insurgency related warfare. In this scenario it is hard to see a place for Trident, but that is not the point. Trident is a strategic deterrent, if anyone here can tell me what the global strategic environment will be like in 20-30 years time I will be happy to review the requirement for Trident on that basis.

Trident is one of a raft of defence strategies which keep this county safe. Defence is as much about the unexpected as it is about the threats we see. I suspect the world envisaged 20 years ago did not include threats such as Al Quaeda.

The real issue is that defence is a relatively small proportion of our national expenditure and always seems an easy cut when no-one is storming the beaches. We need to focus on the large consumers of public money such as the overblown bureaucracy , the overinflated benefits system and inefficient health system rather than falling for the populist symbolic cut that trident represents.

We don't need all these nuclear war-heads. We just need one, and it should be massive!

And instead of giving it a trendy name like 'polaris' or 'trident' we should give it a more realistic name... like "Global Destroyer".

Our leaders should drop its name into conversations more often such as...

"...today the Primeminister was negotiating trade treaties with the president of France. The french president stressed his concerns about Britains lack of reagard for regionally protected produce at which point the Prime minister reminded him that we have a massive nuclear bomb and we were not afraid to use it".

It is all well and good saying get rid of it but you then have to factor in the defence of the country, the loss of jobs not just in those that maintain the weapons but those in manufacturing and other services that have a vested interest in it.

Perhaps I am prejudiced in my views having lived on a UK strategic missile station during the Cuba Missile Crisis and recalling the fear and the sense of hopelessness that nuclear confrontation creates. Of course we should have a deterrent but it does not have to be the overkill of Trident - just enough to ensure potential attackers are concerned about first strike on the UK. However, there is a moral dilemma about nukes - what if a weapon of mass destruction such as biological warfare or chemical warfare was unleashed on us - should we respond on the basis of we will hit back with similar weapons or threaten to nuke someone - though the someone may be hard to determine! We need to get away from the cold war mentality and have a review of Britain's place in the world and how we most effectively defend our country - before we set about breaking the bank on the old nuclear options such as Trident.

Trident isn't like a three year-old car that needs an MOT. Why can't we keep the one we've got, rather than upgrading to the one with satnav and a CD player than can take six (yes, six!) CDs. At a time! Enough for most inter-continental journeys!

We need a nuclear deterrent, yes. Do we need state of the art Trident? Possibly not. We only need a potential enemy to believe that we have the will and the capability to blow them to bits.

But I very much doubt if America is going to let a sale worth anything between 20 and 130 billion pounds - never mind dollars - go without a fight. Whoever says no to this will probably end up wishing that they had said yes.

Do we need Trident for military purposes. Lets get real, we are nto going have a nuclear strike on the following countries USA, Russia, China, France, Israel, India or Pakistan. Soour weapons we be aimed at non nuclear contries. So it is not a deterent to others. Secondly we do not have an Independent nuclear capability, it lies within Nato. So we do not have the final say if we had decided to nuke a foreign power, The USA decides that for us. Germany and Japan do not have nuclear weapons and do not feel threatened.

I think the Media and politicians are in a time warp regarding our military position in the world. Take the advice of the military, it is a sheer waste of resources.

Trident was a weapon and deterant of a totally different time and enermy. It does not fit in with todays enermy as they know we wouldn't use it.
It should be kept until a more suitable deterant or weapon is developed that would scare the bejesus out of terrist like the Taliban and Al-Quieda or even some of the more unstable Middle East nation like Syria Iran etc.
Be prepared to use it as a show of intention not just keep it lockd away in the tubes of subs gathering dust and costing a small fortune to maintain.

Either way, non of the current political leadership would dis-arm unilaterally as there is too much political outfall.

A number of very ignorant people have written that Polaris and Trident were not effective deterrents during the Falklands and 1st Gulf War.

It is well recorded that during the Falklands a Polaris submarine was deployed to the Islands and its presence quietly announced to the Argentine Government. Its purpose was quite clear that should the Argentines use Chemical or Nuclear weapons it was attempting to obtain from other sympathetic nations, the UK would respond first against major military targets in remote areas of the country and if necessary against Argentine cities.

In the first Gulf War it was made quite clear to Iraq that a chemical or nuclear attack on the coalition forces would result in an overwhelming nuclear response from the coalition.

Their is clear evidence that Argentina suspended the use of its high flying Canberra bombers to gather information on the British Task Force, instead using more vulnerable Lear Jets in case the Canberra flights were misinterpreted as an attempt to deliver a nuclear weapon.

In the first Gulf War it is clear the Iraq government made no attempt to deploy its considerable stocks of chemical weapons against the coalition.

So we can draw a clear conclusion that the Trident system is a valuable and highly cost effective solution in the defence of this country.

To me this is blindingly obvious.

Trident must be scrapped by the UK in a controlled way - i.e. used as a bargaining chip to get other countries to scrap (or reduce) their nuclear arsenals too. Once this has been achieved, some of the £80,000,000,000 saved should be used to strengthen our conventional forces and expand our intelligence operations on the ground.

In the 21st century, this is by far the best way to avoid being a target.

If we don't have a nuclear deterrent we lose our place on the UN Security Council.

We won't have any political say on global security.

Don't know whether its good or bad but the Lib Dems don't mention that they're planning to take us out off the UN Security Council.

I used to be in the Royal Navy so have a good grasp of what having a nuclear deterrent is all about. However, the phrase that bothers me most about this is.

"However, there are concerns that such a move could affect relations with the United States."

Sorry, whether or not we keep Trident should be considered only in two contexts. Our own national security concerns and within the context of our role in NATO.

If we, as a country, decide we don't want to keep paying for them, but the US thinks we should keep them, I've no problem with that. I'm sure we could come to a suitable 'rental' agreement for our ships and men. Or they could just buy them off us and then I'm sure we could come to an agreement about having a base here.

The government of the day was discussing this back in the 80's ? Why have politicians not delt with this yet ?

Scrap Trident and just keep what we have. Nuclear Weapons are no longer a deterrent as the terrorists have proven.

To those thinking of the Trident as a deterrent - in the context of the 21st century - do our soldiers with their tanks, APCs and automatic weapons provide a deterrent to the human bomb? So why should our Trident be a deterrent with countries with nothing to loose (North Korea) or a population whom believe terminal sacrifice leads to Heaven? As we have seen recently, one small volcano pumping a bit of ash into the sky can cause complete havoc from transportation to the economies of whole countries. Imagine that a thousand folder if we unleashed a few nuclear warheads. In this world where everyone's economies are reliant on everyone elses - destroy one country and threaten to bring down your own through lack of trade etc - ask yourself do nuclear weapons actually have a purpose any more?

For all those who think we need them. Well, burglars don't steal from empty houses - which Britian is fast becoming.

The only mad men running around this world are Bush/Blair and their continuing murderous legacy, and the war criminals in Israel! Trident is a nonsense created by the US threats on anything that moves, Korea is constantly threatened, Iran is constantly threattened and friends of the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan, are now being showed what their sacrifices are worth by being friendly to the US, Saddam was undemocratically supported by the US to annoy Iran and try to sneak a cheaper barrel! Jeez anyone heard of the Blood Telegram, and its shows how the US will support genocide against bengalis and go to war with India by happily supporting the Pakistanis! India held the moral highground and did the right thing, and for years the US has sponsired terrorism against india! that is the truth and being ignorant about these facts makes you wonder who is the real brainwashed society????? the ones who think he british raj was a peaceful and romantic period of british history? or the ones who see slave trade through to the annihilation of aboriginies by the hands of these people who still want migrants to speak english but then raise Union Jacks and get drunk all day when they migrate to spain! double standards of white supremacy!

A world without nuclear weapons is an idealist one at best, much like the war on drugs can never be won, there will always be drugs & there will always be nukes.

Most arguments I see for a nuke free world are put forward by ill informed environmentalists who cannot see beyond the 'green agenda' & those who argue against it for financial reasons don't seem to realise that security comes at a price.

The world unfortunately is not a safe place. If we throw away our deterrents, this will be seen as a sign of weakness by those who would kill me, my family & everybody else's without hesitation.

That's the thing that scares me most: because some people, 'if they were in charge', would leave us to the mercy of well trained & merciless enemies.

"History has shown us that we cannot completely rely on NATO or America to protect British Interests"

Trident is an American system, so the idea that it is an "independent deterrent" is a complete nonsense, and it has no conceivable purpose, other than subsidising the US arms industry. Brown/Cameron could not even blow their noses in anger without permission from the US president, and everyone knows this. We are a minor, post-colonial country with delusions of grandeur, based on a folk memory.
It is madness to spend £100 billion on nuclear weapon systems when Britain is bankrupt. Ask the Germans about how they can possibly cope with no "independent deterrent", and a successful, industrially-based economy. We must be the laughing stock of Europe.

This is a no brainer, of cause we need our nuclear deterrent more now than ever. We are at war and wars create hatred and hatred drives people to do the evilist of things. It is sad but true that we are fighting undemocratic corporate wars and war is now corporate form arms to supplies but we as the people fund it in money and lives and governments carry it out in our name.

The world will never be free from nuclear weapons as long as the human race has different idiologies and religions. Any one who thinks we should unilaterally give up our defence is living in a dream world. 80 billion is well worth paying for the security it provides. If it were not for nuclear arms the second world war would have carried on into Capitalist against Communist and that is still brewing under the surface.

The UK's independent deterrent is no such thing, the warheads are owned by the US, who have to activate them before they can be fired, their guidance systems are wholly controlled by the US, so we need their permission to target them ,even the steel used to build the subs came from the US as part of the deal.
A nuclear deterrent is a prestige project. After cooperating with the US in the Manhattan Project, our reward after the war ended was to be denied access to the very technology we had helped to develop. So even though virtually bankrupted by the cost of the war, the Atlee government went ahead with our own A-bomb. The US had it, the USSR very quickly got it, the UK and France went ahead and got their own to remain 'players' at the top table.
The situation is still the same.
A rational debate of how the UK's nuclear deterent should be configured is required.
What are the threats?
How do we counter them?
What can we afford?
We could just maintain a nuclear force and disband all other armed forces. We would just need a delivery system, subs, silos or whatever and a security force to protect it's land bases. Any existential threat to the UK or it's interests countered by a well publicised strategy of using nukes in such a case.
Argentina invades the Falklands,our response, a nuclear attack on Buenos Aires.
A terrorist bomb in London, a nuclear strike against their home countries capital, as the June bombers were Brits, but trained in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan by Saudis....where do we drop it?
A counter stroke against a nuclear armed state, the UK would have be destroyed as a political entity anyway in such a scenario.
Just discussing possible scenarios shows the problems associated with using nuclear weapons.
Al Q'Aida is not deterred by our nuclear deterrent, neither was PIRA, Pinochet wasn't either.
The most common argument for upgrading Trident is one of national prestige. At £100 billion(at todays prices) an expensive status symbol.

"However, there are concerns that such a move could affect relations with the United States."

Well, there are also concerns that far too many decisions in this country which are taken with way too much consideration given to what might "affect relations with the United States".

As far as British National Security is concerned - whichever side of this particular argument you're on - the only country whose opinions matter, is Britain.

If the Americans don't like our decision, whatever it may be, they're more than welcome to go cry me a river. Certainly, I don't remember them ever deferring to us, or anybody else for that matter, when it comes to decisions concerning their National Security.

As for the question - yes, Trident should be scrapped, immediately. As should any other weapon or defensive product which is not designed, manufactured and sourced entirely within the UK.

For anybody who genuinely cares about UK security; it ought to be inconceivable that the plans and blueprints for some of our best military hardware are actually held by foreigners. It would be an absolutely hilarious concept, if it weren't for the fact that it's true.

Yes, we might well have good relations with some of these countries now; so what? We had pretty good relations with Germany in the late 30's, up until the point where they invaded Poland and started butchering Jews. Saddam Hussein was best friends with the Americans, up until the point he started getting in the way of their interests. Yugoslavia used to be one single country, until the two main entities within it decided, basically, that that really hated each other.

In conclusion; I actually think the money would be better spent on areas of the military that we use all the time - such as frontline troops, equipment, vehicles, support, etc. - than on something which is going to cost an enormous amount of money and that we're actually (hopefully!) going to try our best never to have to use.

But, if we do need a continuing nuclear deterrent; for goodness' sake, get something other than Trident.

No, absolutely not. (And it's got nothing to do with our relationship with the USA)
The only two policies I do not agree with Nick Clegg on are the scrapping of Trident and the all out inclusion into the EU, i agree with every other policy i see from the Lib Dems. But these two policies alone are enough to stop me from voting for them.
There are so many other wasteful government strategies and policies that waste so much more money, get rid of them.

Trident is so utterly pointless that it's almost criminal to waste the money. All the massive nuclear powers - the USA, Russia and China - have an arsenal large enough to take out every person on this planet several times over. We have a few missiles that are going to do... what, exactly? Thinking Trident is going to 'save' us is like going into the battle of the Somme with a penknife - if the fighting starts, we've had it.

So why not instead spend the money on a missile defence system? Surely armour is of more use than a dagger in a lance fight? If the world starts firing nukes at each other, we simply put up our shield. After a few days, the major nuclear powers would have wiped themselves off the planet, at which point we could come back out form under our rock and continue the human race.

Steve wrote:
NO.

"These weapons are not to win a war - they are to hit back."

Hit back at who? Are you aware that the planet can be destroyed hundreds of times over with this utter waste of your money? You just don't get it, do you?
We use Trident, we all die. We don't use it, gazillions of your wasted tax money.
Waken up!

10. At 11:54am on 21 Apr 2010, Graphis wrote:

"........well it successfully prevented Saddam Hussein's Iraq from being invaded by his neighbours for many years. If he hadn't overdone it and been perceived as a threat by the West, then he'd still be safe and snug behind his smokescreen even now."

Any half decent intelligence bureau will work out in ten minutes that the empty hulls you suggest are false.

Please also read your history books regarding Iraq. Saddam did have chemical weapons for many years and openly used them against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq War.

Anything war related should be scrapped. Defense or Offense. Unfortunately there are too many warmongers out there to appease.

43. At 12:36pm on 21 Apr 2010, crowshadow wrote:

Trident should not be scrapped. We need a nuclear deterrent and it would cost too much to replace it.

seen as it's a cold war relic, it's either going to need scrapping or replacing sooner rather than later. we certainly can't keep it indefinitely because the cost of maintenance then moves into vastly diminishing returns, but then you carefully considered that before you posted, no?

trident certainly isn't independent, so all this talk of maintaining "our own" is nonsense. you can't call it independent when the rockets are made by Lockheed and it's sole purpose was to retaliate against a potential Soviet first strike against NATO, due to our relative proximity to Moscow and other large Russian cities.

why do we incessantly go on about the need for a nuclear deterrent? which nuclear-armed nation are we in conflict with? I suppose you can always argue that we don't know what will happen in the future, but then again we might as well euthanize the human race now, just in case the space aliens from war of the worlds or independence day come and seek to enslave us all to serve their own ends..

my tin foil hat is on.

Trident is NOT a UK independent nuclear deterrent.

We need the Yanks to give us permission (i.e. access to the keys to the button) to use it. Not a lot of people know that.

So the idea that we spend billions propping up the US military industry and keep lots of people in jobs in the US for something that is effectively theirs to choose how they use anyway seems like very poor value for money to me.

Scrapping it would of course probably mean that too many politicians' noses would have to be taken from the trough.

No, absolutely not (and not for the reason to be friends with the US, any nuclear system we have MUST be independent).
The only two policies I do not agree with Nick Clegg on are the scrapping of a nuclear deterrent and the all out inclusion into the EU, i agree with every other policy i see from the Lib Dems. But these two policies alone are enough to stop me from voting for them.
There are so many other wasteful government strategies and policies that waste so much more money, get rid of them instead.

It is sad to see the common lie of the Liberal Left that we need American permission to fire Trident repeated again and again on this site, and shows the ignorance of so many people who write here.

It is a simple fact that Trident and Polaris can be fired with total independence, in fact so independent the crew can fire them (something the Americans are not allowed to do) and during the cold war the Polaris subs senior officers had sealed orders which allowed them to make a judgement to fire if the UK had been destroyed before they had received orders to fire or not to fire from UK. The orders were quite simple, if the UK is dead, try and make contact with US, Canadians or Australians if you cannot make contact you may make your own judgement to fire or not.

The only thing the Americans could do would be to deny us service and maintenance support. Doing this tomorrow without any warning would mean that the 48 missiles the Royal Navy has available to it at any one time would last some 10 years before we had less that the one boat load of 16 missiles serviceable. That's 10 years for us to learn how to maintain and support them.

"I would argue that nuclear weapons have done more for peace than anything else."

Which, of course, is an excellent argument for Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iraq, Israel, and anyone else who feels threatened.

So why do the US and their New Labour poodles refuse to rule attacking Iran?
Iran has not threatened us, but we attack Iraq, Afghanistan, and threaten Iran. Presumably you would agree that Iran needs nuclear weapons against the frequent threats of attack from dangerous madmen in the West.

Post #41 is well put and deserves a response.

Argentina did not invade the Falklands in an event-vacuum. The UK withdrew the last remnants of naval presence and Argentina took this is a signal of a) weakness and b) unwillingness to defend. Yes, Argentina knew there would be no nuclear response: but I would suggest to you that the Falklands was a strange kind of "war". There was no formal declaration as such, and once the British Navy arrived, the Argentine forces on the Falklands stopped receiving reinforcements. There was no Argentine naval attempt to break the famous "exclusion zone". Why?
Because Thatcher showed her willingness to be ruthless in sinking the Belgrano. She showed (and by the way I am no fan of hers - but the facts are the facts) that she was willing to escalate the "conflict" to a "war" if the Argentines provoked the UK further. It MUST have been in the minds of the Junta that a nuclear sub was off their shore and that Thatcher showed no signs of weakness - whether it changed their policies or not we shall probably never know - but I would suggest that the lack of attempt to break the exclusion zone is informative.

2) Terrorists, including Al Quaeda, have their weak-spots too. MAD does apply - if we let them know that their most precious holy sites are not nuclear-proof. That is a horrible thing to think - but so was bombing Dresden and we did that anyway because we thought the citizens of Germany deserved anything they got (I'm not agreeing, mind, just describing the UK's public opinion at the time).

3) Fear of the unknown overcoming reason. This is your most powerful argument. Are people wanting to hold onto nuclear weapons being irrational? To some extent, my heart agrees with you. Dreadnoughts were supposed to stop war, and didn't, for example. History is full of examples of people building up weapons in order to prevent attack. They always end up being attacked, or attacking. The best defence is to stop people wanting to attack you! My head, however, has to disagree. The UK is not the world's most popular nation. Until WWII, the UK was widely regarded as just as bad as Germany - the empire being very exploitative. While nobody is safe from madmen, nobody in charge of a government has attacked the UK since the Falklands. (unless you count Reagan attacking Grenada!)

This is just posturing by the Generals, who have a vested interest in ensuring the Army maintain the largest part of the ever deminishing Defence budget.

If we agree Trident should not be replaced, then we also agree that the deterrent has no value so the current fleet should be scrapped now.

As this would result in massive and immediate job cuts in many parts of the country, no serious polical party is going to make that decision soon.

The £80 billion is also red herring as this will be over 30 years+, so will in fact be around £2.5 billion a year; in some recent years the overpayments of Tax Credits have been larger than that.

Duh.
Trident did no good on 7/7 (or 9/11).
And to those who equate it with `deterrence'.
You simply don't need an expensive system to have an effective nuke deterrent.
So the question of unilateralism doesn't even enter here.

#42. At 12:34pm on 21 Apr 2010, rational_thinker wrote:

"Whilst there are leaders in the world with the wealth, power, will and ideology to create and use nuclear weapons against us, we need a deterrant."

Rational thought is wasted if it's built on false premises, Rational Thinker. You need to question your assertion that there are countries with the desire to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on us. What would they gain from it? How would it improve Iran or North Korea's lot? If you really think we're at risk please explain why.

Nuclear weapons are the reason why there has not been a 3rd world war which would have meant a communist world order. So long as there are rouge states and elements who would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against us, then the free world needs them.

The post-war generation have much to thank US and Soviet nuclear weapons for. They prevented another World War and relegated war to non-nuclear conflicts like Korea and Vietnam. The UK contribution allowed us a seat at the Security Council of the UN. It was, and is, a political weapon not a battlefield one. Today there is no good political reason to keep Trident. It does not contribute to World peace and in what scenario could the UK alone use it?. Compared to superpower arsenals it would make a very small and superfluous contribution to a suicidal retaliation.
The £100 billion could be useful as well.

The problem is the adjustment from a Nuclear to a non-Nuclear power. This has never happened before & unless all Nuclear powers agree then we should still retain our nuclear arsenal.

The weapons themselves are broadly irrelevant. Trident just gives us a seat at "the table".

Is that worth £80bn? Not in my opinion but what else would that £80 billion be spent on? We all know the government wouldn't spend it on frontline services that deliver real benefit to peoples lives, it would just be poured into the black hole of incapacity benefits, public sector waste and government consultancy fees.

At least with Trident we actually have something to show for our money.

Our independent nuclear deterrent is worth much more than the 80bn pounds (upper estimate)it would cost to replace. Without nuclear weapons, we would lose our permanent seat on the UN security council (I don't know if you've noticed but all the other countries are nuclear powers), lose our remaining influence in the world and become relegated to becoming a backwater European power on the same level as the Netherlands. From here, we'd lose preferential trade agreements and much of our strong negotiating position, the cost to the economy as we became more and more irrelevant would be huge. This is all quite apart from losing the industry which depends on the maintenance of nuclear weapons in this country.
Nuclear weapons are about a lot more than just causing untold destruction and it is important that people remember this before just thinking about the upfront cost of a replacement.

No, absolutely not (and not for the reason to be friends with the US, any nuclear system we have MUST be independent).
The only two policies I do not agree with Nick Clegg on are the scrapping of a nuclear deterrent and the all out inclusion into the EU, i agree with every other policy i see from the Lib Dems. But these two policies alone are enough to stop me from voting for them.
There are so many other wasteful government strategies and policies that waste so much more money, get rid of them instead.

#2, DickChambers69:

"History has shown us that we cannot completely rely on NATO or America to protect British Interest. We need NUKES."

Which bit of history would that be then? Are you thinking of when Argentina invaded the Falklands? It's true that NATO and America didn't help us out then, but it's also true that we had nukes then.

They didn't really make much difference, did they?

"The sooner all nuclear weapons are dismantled the better."

If not for nuclear weapons we would have gone through World War III by now. And we'd still be fighting all the wars in between. Why is it there has not been a major conflict between any industrialised country?

Has history not taught you anything? The "war to end all wars" was followed by another world war. Curiously all the major powers in the world stopped fighting after World War II. If you dismantled all nuclear weapons I can assure you, there would be another world war.

Nukes have kept us safe!

We've had nukes, and we haven't been invaded since (apart from the Falklands, but they don't count).

Switzerland doesn't have nukes, and they keep getting invaded more or less every month.

Oh, wait a minute...

Oh dear, what a lot of squawking and shrieking from the usual "patriotic" suspects. All puffed up about "deterrence", slipping in "CND" as if we'd all go "oh well, that shows you then doesn't it…", blathering on like little Blimps about not being able to rely on NATO or the USA or Europe etc. They seem stuck in the 1950s in their little fortress off the coast of Europe.
Couldn't they just TRY for once to glance at a real newspaper, and get another point of view to parrot? No, I suppose not - their little world, and Little Englander approach, relies heavily on being sustained by the more rabid right-wing columnists, facts and evidence being in short supply.
OF COURSE we don't need Trident - no one in the world thinks we do, apart from the people selling it (and even they will be giggling all the way to the bank). Even the Americans say we should just shut up and get in more with Europe in defence and other ways. But the paranoid, unthinking right in the UK, laughing stock that they are in the rest of the world, still, deep down, fear nuclear attacks from France or Germany - probably Belgium too. And NO ONE seriously believes that the Americans would let us use Trident independently. The pro-Trident brigade are like apes waving sticks at zebras - in a zoo. It's hilarious, except they want to waste EIGHTY THOUSAND MILLION on it.