£167bn now

To replace trident just wondering what fellow posters feel about this I have to admit to being anti trident as its money the UK doesn't really have with all this cuts going on.

Be good to get a healthy good natured debate.

Worth every penny because it prevents world wars. Mutually assured destruction concentrates the mind wonderfully.

also creates 1000's of jobs

Where is this 1000s of jobs as a matter of interest..

The Westminster government have already said that but there's only around 520 people work at faslane..

Where is this 1000s of jobs as a matter of interest..

Knock on effect for all the associted industries, just like every other business when one go's bust, or stops, it takes others with it.

There's not 100,00s of jobs..

OK then let me say this..

Either you press the nuclear button first- which would be mad - or you press it in retaliation - in which case it wasn't a detterant..

In fact I would make it the first target.

We have enough nuclear bombs in Scotland to kill up to 320 million people more than 99% would be innocent people men woman and children who have done nothing wrong YES we do need them well not for me as I believe in peace not mass murders by the millions.

That £167bn could easily be made to create 1000s of jobs in the health care for example where the tax payer can get the treatment and care he or she truly deserves.

OK then let me say this..

Either you press the nuclear button first- which would be mad - or you press it in retaliation - in which case it wasn't a detterant..

You seem not to have grasped the principle of MAD. Nuclear weapons exist to deter aggression. No sane world leader would ever use them because there would be absolutely no point. You only attack believing you can win.

Disarming leaves the nation vulnerable to attack and reliant on the USA. 

Of course there are insane leaders in the world and that is why the IAEA work to prevent proliferation.

Ok nuclear weapons exist to deter aggression.,that is indeed a good point..

But what about the dangers for example serious  incidents of having them on our doorstep in this case Faslane just miles from Scotland's biggest city and Carlisle in the north of England.

I'm hoping we can keep this thread going in a friendly manner. Which is fair to say is happening  which is good. 

Edit to say most countries don't have nuclear weapons even Norway doesn't have any even though they can WELL AFFORD it. .

With modern weapons it matters not where they are located. Trident missiles can reach anywhere they are programmed to go. Usually the seat of hostile governments  We point them at them and they point them at us. That is kind of their purpose.

I would argue that nuclear weapons have kept the world at peace for seventy years. The balance of power matters.

Well here's  a we bit of info on nuclear sub's .. It does matter where they are located..

There been 5 category B incidents involving trident. Category A being the highest and worst.

1 at Faslane 

2 at Davenport.

1 in the middle of the Med .

1 off the coast of Norway..

These Incidents are of massive concern.. You could also say they are a hazard let's not forget 100s of other incidents of less than category B.

The nuclear bombs travel through the UK in the back of huge trucks where indeed there has been other incidents.

Yesser, your thread title is surely misleading.

How do you get to such a figure please?

Perhaps you figure include a contingency fund in case a few of them go off accidentally?

Hi Acer the info regarding the incidents involving trident came from a Liberal democrat who were in power at the time with the Tories I had the name of the subs the time and date and location  on the E/MAIL I recieved ..

She was to her word as I asked her a question involving incidents she didn't know there had been any and said shed find out for me which she did.. So fair play..

The figure you are asking is readily available on the internet.

Aye a contingency fund there's not one its all being spent..lol.

yesser

the subs have to be designed, built, sea trials, equipment bought, designed, manufactured, installed on the sub and tested etc. and that takes 1000's of jobs across the UK defence industry everything from metalwork to complex systems

many contracts, many areas of specialism way way beyond the yards

the 520 jobs may do the basic structural build and some of the outfitting of the sub then run the yards operationally and for maintenance

we can debate all day long about the need for nuclear arms but I doubt you will get much more than what has already been said many times

That £167bn could easily be made to create 1000s of jobs in the health care for example where the tax payer can get the treatment and care he or she truly deserves.

Nice thought Yesser but in reality I think even you know that if we didn't spend and saved that kind of money it wouldn't go to anything worthwhile, far better we have this deterrent, heavens knows with the world we are now making every little bit helps. 

Far better to have and never use it, then to need it and not have it.

There is also a military political theory that advocates upping the ante in military nuclear technology spending to force potential enemies, particularly Russia to do the same. Russia is verging on economic ruin due to the oil price collapse. If the west upgrades Trident and its systems Russia will be forced into spending more to keep up. Or they may force Putin into a rapprochement with the west and stop his military aggressions around the world.

President Regan did that and the Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up.

I like your logic MickyFinn, better a war of attrition than the real thing.

Not my logic acer but USA strategic military policy. Now wait for the CIA to get curious.

Thanks for some very good replies..

I was involved in a survey which indeed covered all walks of life from all ages about trident ..

Most OAPs agreed with having it with 80% in favour ..

The 40-60 age group indeed was about 45% for and 55% against ..

But from the 16-39 age group the figure was just slightly over the 82% ..

That was a few years ago so that findings would now be outdated ..

All the same very interesting .

Just wondering would the people of London be happy with weapons of mass destruction within 35 miles, don't think so. Or the expats if is was the same distance from where they are in Spain ? 

Jeremy Corbyn can cope with the sub, just as long as it's unarmed, so neither use nor ornament defence wise.