Exactly JMWIL.

The people who are happy having it mostly wouldn't be happy with it next to where they live..

Any where else but in their own back yard..

The people who are happy having it mostly wouldn't be happy with it next to where they live..

So you believe that's a good enough reason not to have a strategic nuclear defence capability?

It matters not where these weapons are kept. They are inert until armed. The entire planet then becomes one target.

We are protected by nuked 

The same way 

American 

School children are protected 

By assault rifles.

G A Ponsonby.

Philip Hammond MP speaking on Sky news 7/2/16.

North Korea seem to this possessing a nuclear weapon 

Makes them safe.in fact its the opposite,

Having a nuclear weapon makes them a target.

You really couldn't make that up.

I reckon it's best to ignore most politicians and those who hold intense views on subjects.  They seem to be able to convince themselves without justification and want to spread whatever they've decided is right.

I remember being told by a Ban the Bomb protester that mathematically a nuclear bomb would be denoted by accident every 27 years.  That was in 1971.

But for me the thought of people like Daesh getting the device is more than a little disconcerting.  Putin is low risk compared to these fanatics and Iran must be a potential source.  You've got to hope that the UN monitors are all up to the job.

This message was last edited by acer on 23/03/2016.

These are the figures I have.

UK has 215 warheads.

France 300 warheads.

China has 260 warheads 

India has around 115 warheads 

Pakistan has around 120 warheads.

North Korea has 10 or even less.

But the biggest is Russia 7500 

USA has 7200 .

That adds up to a lot of killing.when you consider UK can kill up to 320 million people with the amount we have.

Well the current system has worked OK so far.

For me the only danger is electing a Prime Minister that reckons he would never use a nuclear weapon no matter whatever happened.  Thinking that is one thing, shouting it from the roof tops shows an extraordinary lack of statesmanship, but perhaps he never wanted to be PM.

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

Only because they didn't live through the very real posssibility of a nuclear war in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. One which probably didn't start because of the deterrent held by NATO (UK included). Kruschev got us very close in 63 with Cuba but realised he couldn't outbluff Kennedy. Every exercise we carried out in Germany (Western only at that time) had the same scenario. Soviets would overrun all allied forces (Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Brits and others who maintained forces in Germany) due to absolutely overwhelming forces in East Germany (GSFG)* backed up by whole Armies maintained in Poland and the end was always the same. US would ride in like the cavalry and go nuke. Endex.

Obviously, every one of these exercises was being monitored by the Soviets who knew what endex meant. That's what a deterrent was all about.

Nowadays we only have submarine nuclear missiles. Apart from the political side of keeping those subs in Faslane, that area gives virtually instant access to deep water for the subs to sink into. Putting them in, for example Portsmouth or even the North Sea, would mean a long period to get to deep enough seas and being easy targets until then.

And if one of these things actually does go off (accidentally or otherwise) it won't matter if you're 35 miles away or 350 miles away.

* Soviets maintained 8 full armies in E Germany alone. An army consists of 3 Corps containing 4 divisions. UK had 1 (BR) Corps which was only 3 divisions (the 4th being mothballed in UK), the Belgians and Dutch had one nominal Corps in Northern Army Group (NORTHAG) consisting of 2 divisions and the West German army 1 Corps. The USA maintained one full army which either increased by 1 Corps or decreased by 1 Corps depending on the perceived threat.

All in all, including the French who withdrew from NATO for some time but maintained troops in Berlin in the French sector, the allies could fields possibly 2 complete armies. All facing 7 full strength Soviet armies in GSFG alone with another 5 from the SNAG (Soviet Northern Army Group) in Poland backing them up. I think our optimistic raison d'etre was to hold them up for a week to give the USA time to bring in more of their forces.

That these events only came to pass in exercises was, I submit, due to the nuclear deterrent held by NATO.

Edited to add.

And anyone who thinks the USSR wouldn't have tried anything needs to remember that, apart from the Cuban missile crisis in 63, they blocked off Berlin in 48 leading to the Berlin airlift which lasted nearly a year. Then they stuck a big wall up to divide Berlin in 61 and huge towers and fences around the whole of E Germany.

The USA used to keep B52 bombers permanently in the air carrying a nuke payload. They used to fly up the Med and across Europe before returning to the US. In 1962 one crashed in Almeria during re-fueling causing plutonium pollution which is still there. The point of this tale is the bombs did not explode because the final stage of priming is not done until conflict is imminent. That is done by the US president with the code keys.

In Trident's case the captain has half the priming codes in his safe on board. The prime minister has the other half. The nukes are inert until they are primed and cannot explode and represent no risk except nuclear  leakage from the ships reactor. That is the same as a small power station and is quite safe.

There are many other things in modern life that represent greater threats to people than Trident. With nuclear proliferation in the world disarming Europe's deterrent is misguided, dangerous and would leave us defenceless.

Thankfully most politicians understand that need except lifetime ban the bombers like Mr Corbyn.

The young are our future the 82% in that survey wanted change they also don't see any point in spending that amount of money on these weapons of mass destruction..

I'm sure the young all over Europe think the same as do the older generation who feel we need them.

Just the way it is I suppose .

Mmmm the young always adopt daft ideas until they grow up. I was a committed Maxist at university and went on demos protesting at the 'running dogs of capitalism'. Ah the joyful days of naive exurberance.

Trouble is politicians such as the Lib dems and Mr Corbyn just haven't fully grown.

I reckon that the 1960's completely evaded some of the folk on this forum, who the hell would want to live in a world consumed by fear? I have given up on the self appointed sensible sabre rattling matures,I'll take my chances in a world that is not run by war mongers, give the young a chance, my generation has caused enough unrest. I'd much rather see the money go towards beating the likes of Islamic State with conventional weaponry, which conversely would be a huge step towards world peace.

Aye Micky but I feel the younger generation are more aware nowadays..

I've spoke to loads of them who know more than folk give them credit for.. There's more information out there than the good old BBC are willing to tell you.

Poll just out 93% of Germans want rid of nuclear weapons in a new poll with 85%wanting rid of all American weapons of mass destruction in Germany.

With all this latest polls most don't want but have to say most pensioners want to keep them at any cost..

Maybe one day just maybe we will be rid of these horrible horrible weapons .

It would be interesting to ask the same participants in your poll if they wishes Germany to be left defenceless from any attack from the Russian Federation. The USA guarantees the defence of Germany so Germany does not rearm and risk a repeat of history.

I suspect another result might ensue.

The more polls the better as the young up n coming don't want these weapons of mass destruction..

Not everyone thinks like Westminster thankfully and times are changing for the better no matter which way you look at it these nuclear weapons are barbaric.. Killing mostly innocent people like you and me.for what.

But we need to remember Westminster loves having these things it puts them at the dinning table with like  minded 

For me I want world peace never do I want to see that type of killing in Hiroshima we all remember that imagies .

Who could forget that devastation and that young lass with her skin all burnt off and of course the illnesses that followed killing many more people.

The fear is that a nuclear device could be detonated from say, a car boot, by a suicide bomber, not a lot that Trident can do about that. The yanks worry me, if an attack on them came from Mecca they are liable to retaliate against a bingo hall in Moss Side, but having said that I've driven through Moss Side.    

Terror alert after Belgian nuclear plant guard is murdered and his security pass is stolen amid concerns terrorists are plotting an attack on power station 

• Security guard at a Belgian nuclear plant was murdered in Charleroi area 
• When he was found, his security pass for site had been taken from him
• Officials quickly cancelled his security pass so nobody could try to use it 
• Nuclear power plants are known to be targets for the terror network behind the Brussels bombings 

Ash Carter, the US Defense Secretary said - Feb 2016

The UK’s deterrent is an important part of the deterent structure of NATO, of our alliance with the UK, and helps the United Kingdom to continue to play that outsized role on the global stage that it does because of its moral standing and its historical standing.

“It’s important to have a military power that matches that standing”, he continued  “and so we’re very supportive of it. And of course we work with the United Kingdom, we are intertwined on this program, mutually dependent. We are partners in this very strongly.

He then added that Trident was “part of the special relationship” of the UK and the US.

So exactly why is it so important to the US? Of course there is the financial aspect of the matter. The cost of the missile system with warheads is likely to come out in the region of £5-10 billion. US contractors are also likely to do well out of the submarine contracts, since the new nuclear reactors are to be built to a US design.

UK Parliament’s Select Committee on Defence back in 2006, assembled by Greenpeace from various expert sources. It states:

In practice, the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it. There are precedents for the USA using UK participation in this way for conventional military operations.

The principal value of the UK’s participation in the recent Iraq war was to help legitimise the US attack. Likewise the principal value of the firing of UK cruise missiles as part of the larger US cruise missile attack on Baghdad was to help legitimise the use of such weapons against urban targets.

The most likely scenario in which Trident would actually be used is that Britain would give legitimacy to a US nuclear strike by participating in it.
 

So what exactly is the UK’s “outsized role on the global stage”? This is a clear reference to the UK’s military attacks on other countries, invariably in support of US campaigns. Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. The US values the UK’s military support for the ‘legitimacy’ that it provides and the sense that the US forms part of an ‘alliance’ and is not acting unilaterally.

And the role of Trident is clear: to allow us, while engaging in further military attacks on other sovereign nations, to deter retaliation by threatening a nuclear strike in response. This has nothing to do with defending the UK against some ‘mad dog’ dictator irrationally determined to destroy us. It is all about providing cover for our own military adventurism and that of the US. (gr)

That’s an interesting theory, however I don’t agree with the assertion that the UK strategic nuclear capability is simply a tool for the US defence industry. I am also sure the USA does not need legitimate cover or support from other nations for their military decisions. Coalitions are desirable in a military conflict but not a sine qua none.

Firstly any nuclear attack would likely be in the form of defence or a response to a similar attack from elsewhere on any Nato member nations. That would be a collective decision of Nato leaders. France is a Nato member, a nuclear power and is in the same position at the UK as having an independent nuclear deterrent. Would you see France as another lackey tool to the US military industrial complex?

Both countries have four nuclear powered submarines armed with warheads and France also maintains aircraft with a squadron based on the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Since the end of the Cold War, both countries have considerably shrunk their arsenals. The production of weapons grade plutonium has been stopped entirely. And Great Britain eliminated all the nuclear weapons possessed by its army and air force. However France still maintains almost twice as many nuclear war heads than the UK. It is also is more separate from the USA in operational and co-operation terms than the UK.

In reality Britain could and would, if its interests were threatened oppose any US led military conflict. The UK for example was not involved in any way during the Vietnam conflict. Harold Wilson simply refused to get involved.

Nuclear weapons are about keeping the peace in the world, preventing world conflict and solving issues through diplomacy. Nothing concentrates the minds and wills of nations more than its own self destruction.

As for conventional military conflicts being described as ‘adventurism’. I take that reference to mean the Iraq war and the Bush/Bair disastrous mistake. It would be stretching the imagination indeed to think that or any other conflict had anything at all to do with nuclear weapons and Trident11. That assertion comes directly from the nuclear campaign for disarmament handbook. The USA acts like any other nation when it sees its interests under threat. It is not part of some conspiracy to dominate the world.

Sometimes it gets it horribly wrong I accept that. However the world is a much more stable and peaceful place than if the US indulged itself in isolationist policies. That led to two world conflicts and 80 million dead. Any potential aggressor knows now it will have to deal with the USA and its allies if it starts geo-political aggression by military means. Consequences will result, Mr Putin has discovered that.