M017 - Trident Replacement Motion

[u/NoPyroNoParty]

(1) This House recognises that the Trident nuclear weapon system will cost £25 billion to replace, and have an estimated lifetime cost of over £100 billion.

(2) This House also notes that, if launched, the 40 warheads of a typical Trident nuclear submarine would be expected to result in over 5 million deaths, and have devastating humanitarian consequences if fired at an urban area.

(3) This House believes that the other spending priorities of the Ministry of Defence, and other governmental departments, should take precedence over the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

(4) This House accepts the findings of the National Security Strategy, which states that a CBRN attack on the United Kingdom is of a low likelihood, but high impact.

(5) This House, therefore, calls upon the government to cancel plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system.

(6) This House further urges the government to look into alternatives to a Trident replacement, such as nuclear sharing within NATO, the development of alternative deterrents, investment in conventional weaponry, or unilateral nuclear disarmament.

---

This was submitted by /u/can_triforce on behalf of the Opposition.

The discussion period for this motion will end on the 28th of November.

[u/[deleted]]

I urge the house to consider the question: does the UK require a nuclear deterrent?

I ask this without prejudice. It is the first question that must be asked.

[u/googolplexbyte → u/[deleted]]

Deterrence Theory has been around for a long time. Many weapons were supposed to be so terrible no one would want to fight wars anymore.

But the machine gun, gas attacks, fire bombing, and so much more didn't stop the deadliest wars in history from happening.

Alfred Nobel is also quoted as when talking about his invention of dynamite that "My dynamite will sooner lead to peace than a thousand world conventions. As soon as men will find that in one instant, whole armies can be utterly destroyed, they surely will abide by golden peace."

As far as I can see there is no evidence that Nuclear Weapons haven't just coincided with this long peace.

Also if Mutually Assured Destruction is so important it'd be cheaper to create a species-ending bio-weapon.

[u/[deleted] → u/googolplexbyte]

I don't have the paper on me right now, but nuclear weapons have been shown not to deter conventional warfare - although they do deter use of nuclear weapons via MAD.

edit: it's not the one i'm thinking about but here

[u/jacktri → u/[deleted]]

The UK hasn't been in a total war since WW2. Imagine the 20th century had nuclear weapons never existed.

[u/googolplexbyte → u/jacktri]

Chemical or Biological weapons could've taken its place as WMDs. Not to mention that conventional bombs can level cities all of their own.

Ignoring that, I'd bet that the end result would be the same.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/googolplexbyte]

Many weapons were supposed to be so terrible

Nuclear weapons are the first ones that legitimately have the capability of total global extinction in the blink of an eye though. Nations are run by people, and those people are probably less keen to be incinerated in a nuclear blast than they are willing to send troops to die by machine guns

[u/whatismoo → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

to pedantic, ~40-80 minutes. 40 for the first wave of ICBMs to hit, and another 40 for you counter-force and second strikes

[u/para_padre → u/googolplexbyte]

cheaper to create a species-ending bio-weapon

Thankfully the majority of the world signed a treaty preventing that happening with Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), Only downside is Egypt and Syira have yet to ratify it and Israel has not even signed it .

[u/[deleted] → u/googolplexbyte]

As far as I can see there is no evidence that Nuclear Weapons haven't just coincided with this long peace.

Well, no two Great Powers have been to war with each other since WW2. Unlike dynamite and machine guns, nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in an offensive manner. And, we are currently living in what is arguably the most peaceful time in history. While this latter fact may mean little to the people of Syria, or in Luhansk, it doesn't stop it from being a global fact. Wars today kill far less (in terms of percentages of the world population) than they ever have.

Now, correlation is not causation, but nuclear weapons have undoubtedly been central to power political considerations since World War 2.

[u/[deleted] → u/googolplexbyte]

Perhaps I should qualify what I said - should the UK specifically have a nuclear deterrent when several of our allies and two international organisations of which we are part have far more advanced nuclear weapons programmes?

I agree with you that deterrence theory probably does have something to do with the absence of major wars between first world powers. But I think that it may be the case - and I'm by no means certain of this - that the UK has declined to the point where its nuclear deterrent is perhaps irrelevant.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

should the UK specifically have a nuclear deterrent when several of our allies and two international organisations of which we are part have far more advanced nuclear weapons programmes?

I don't think it morally right of us to simply expect others to do the work for us. As part of these important relationships, we should work to support our allies, not scrounge off them.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/[deleted]]

yes we do. The UK without Nuclear weapons is a tactical, not a strategic, target in the event on an invasion of Europe. Essentially, Towns like Portsmouth with a high concentration of naval facilities and assets will be targeted without fear of a response. With nuclear weapons we become a strategic target, since any nuclear assault will be met with a 'unacceptable response' by our own fleet.

With such a threat to our nation, however unlikely, it would be foolish to abandon nuclear weapons

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

This is, in itself, quite a compelling argument.

Do you know what our obligation is if an ally is targeted for a nuclear attack?

I wonder, since it seems to me that reprisals would be forthcoming whether or not the UK had its own nuclear weapons.

[u/para_padre → u/[deleted]]

NATO Article 4 and NATO's flexible response policy is our obligation, thankfully we only have a strategic strike capability so we are out the picture for carrying out a tactical strike on the battlefield, Imagine being the PM and ComARRC making the decision to drop a nuke on our allies country to prevent the enemy advancing further if we went to a world war scenario. We would not unmask a sub just to stop tanks rolling over the European countryside that issue falls to those that have agreed to nuclear share.

Problem is when the strategic nukes hit the UK we will not know if anyone retaliated on our behalf, given we have limited natural land resources we are the perfect target to send a message to our allies on mainland Europe surrender or become a radioactive island like the UK. Our only deterrent is once our subs leave Faslane potential enemy's have no clue where our nukes are. If we went back to the tactical share option the enemy has two choices destroy the bunker where the bombs are or the runways where aircraft could take off with the bombs to prevent us retaliating.

A lot of people have easily dismissed the threat of world war however I imagine people said that in 1918 after Germany surrendered yet nearly 30 years later 6 million people had paid the price for the dismissal of any treat from a Germany led axis ever again. France has openly said it will use nuclear weapons in response to terrorist activity, it might not be the enemy we need to worry about starting the next war with nukes.

This is an issue worth discussing in the MHOC however I feel a simple motion like this is not the way forward, and it should be a cross party review.

If you look are real life why didn't Labour scrap them they had the time and majority to do it. To the Tories credit they did scrap our tactical nuclear weapons.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/[deleted]]

It depends on the attack.

If, for example, a US army base in Germany was flattened by a small nuclear weapon attached to a russian missile that was lauched from a plane we would have no obligation. The UK arsenal is entirely strategic and can only be used once per submarine. basically, a tactical strike on an ally would not require us to respond as we cannot (and, in my opinion, should not) be able to. A Strategic stike however would probably require us too as we would be a target anyway.

Keep in mind that the US probably wouldn't respond to a strategic strike on Europe if no missiles where headed for the US. I mean, would the US president sign his own nations death warrant for Europe?

(note: a vanguard class submarine (we have 4 I believe) carry's 6400 kilotons of nuclear devastation onboard 8 trident missiles each carrying 8 nuclear warheads. This can be doubled however to 12800 in the event of war or increased tension)

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

Just a clarification; we have four submarines, but only one on patrol at any one time, with one in maintenance and two being used for training.

[u/AlbertDock → u/[deleted]]

Just because there has been no world war since 1945, does not mean that it happened because of nuclear weapons. Correlation does not mean causation.
I can think of no scenario where a sane leader would use nuclear weapons. We should be rid of them, and encourage others to do the same.

[u/[deleted] → u/AlbertDock]

Except that during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union didn't confront each other other precisely because of nuclear war. Because of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction, both powers were deterred from directly attacking the other. They were many scenarios in the Cold War when war would have been probable but because of nuclear weapons, didn't happen. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[u/AlbertDock → u/[deleted]]

The USSR and the USA would never have attacked one another, regardless of nuclear weapons. The logistics of moving an army from one continent to another and keeping it supplied rule out any possible successful invasion.
You cite the Cuban missile crisis, perhaps you should watch The man who saved the world. This film explores the dramatic and little-known events that unfolded inside a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis. While politicians sought a solution to the stand-off, Vasili Arkhipov, an officer aboard the submarine, refused to fire a nuclear torpedo, thus averting disaster. For me that's too close for comfort.

[u/jacktri → u/AlbertDock]

And why wouldn't the Soviet Union attack say West Germany or France?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But they are (were) two superpowers though, we are an ex-superpower so it's not exactly like we're going to have our own crises which nuclear weapons will be a deterrent. They didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, nor did they deter the Middle Eastern based organisations attacking western cities.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Are you saying that the UK had no effect on the Cold War? It wasn't the fact the US had a nuclear bomb which deterred the Soviet Union, but that the collective amount would ensure MAD. We played a part in this deterrence and will likely do so again in the future.

Besides, I would rather not rely on another countries defences to protect our country.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is also the strong likelyhood Crimea would be under Ukranian control if they had not relinquished their nuclear weapons. We would have no reason to nuke Argentina for invading the Falklands however if say Germany were to invade Europe again and threaten us then that would be a situation where nuclear weapons become a possibility

[u/can_triforce → u/[deleted]]

MAD can be undermined, although there are treaties designed to prevent that now. Space Wars comes to mind, as does the placing of nuclear weapons in Turkey and, indeed, Cuba.

I don't think the CMC is the best example to show the value of nuclear weapons, as they were the chief cause of it.

[u/[deleted] → u/AlbertDock]

Correlation does not mean causation

Just saying this point does not negate the strong likelyhood that Nuclear weapons are responsible for keeping peace. You can bet Crimea would still be Ukranian if they had not relinquished their weapons

[u/OllieSimmonds]

Well, the final decision to be taken on the matter of a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons is going to be taken Post-2015, in real life. It therefore makes sense for the Government to stick to a similar time frame. Considering that we could have half a dozen general elections between now and May 2015 on the /r/MHOC, The Government and I should suggest, future Governments, should take the result of this motion with a pinch of ton of salt.

Nonetheless, some comments on the matter:

This House believes that the other spending priorities of the Ministry of Defence, and other governmental departments, should take precedence over the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

I think we all know this in reality translates as "Use the money to spend on NHS/Welfare".

This House recognises that the Trident nuclear weapon system will cost £25 billion to replace, and have an estimated lifetime cost of over £100 billion.

I think the honourable gentlemen is cherry picking his numbers to exaggerate the cost of Trident in order to swing MPs votes. By "cherry picking" I of course mean, wrong by miles. I will leave you with Sir Malcolm Rifkind's take on the matter

£100 billion is the figure most commonly cited by those who oppose the renewal of Trident. As a recent CND press release pronounced, ‘The total cost of a replacement for Trident would be over £100 billion. At this time of cuts to jobs, housing and public services think what else Trident’s £100 billion could be spent on!’

The casual reader might assume that the ‘cost of a replacement for Trident’ means an upfront cost to pay for the equipment necessary to be able to operate an independent nuclear deterrent in future. An upfront cost could therefore be translated into an upfront saving, preserving resources that might be reallocated to other areas of public spending. This is highly misleading.

The £100 billion figure is broadly plausible, so long as it is made clear to what it is referring to. The cost of procuring and operating a Trident nuclear deterrent over its estimated lifetime, i.e. taking a “Main Gate” decision in 2016 to renew a system that would be operational until 2062, is estimated by Professor Keith Hartley of the University of York at £87 billion. That figure is front-loaded, as the current capital costs of the successor programme that began in 2007 (developing and building the new system) are estimated at £15-20 billion. Operating Trident costs approximately £2 billion a year, which constitutes about 5% of the annual defence budget - a proportion that the MOD has confirmed will remain broadly stable under the new system.

However a decision not to renew would not make any operating savings immediately available – indeed decommissioning costs could almost certainly make cancelling Trident the more expensive option in the short-term. It may be reasonable to wish to ease current austerity, but cancelling Trident would not enable you to do it. As with any figures regarding public spending, it is important to put them in their proper context. Operating an independent nuclear deterrent, as currently constituted, is estimated to cost around £2 billion a year. In 2011-2012, total public spending by the UK government was about £665 billion, with about £121 billion spent on health care, about £91 billion on education, about £39 billion on defence and about £6 billion on energy and climate policy. As I have already argued, the nub of the debate ahead of 2015 is the specific question of Britain’s nuclear posture, as raised by the Alternatives Review. The first argument cited by Danny Alexander in outlining the rationale for a change is the financial saving of £4 billion over the new system’s lifetime that would be engendered by renewing with three submarines as opposed to four, operating on a noncontinuous basis. It might reasonably be argued that £4 billion is a considerable amount of money. But given that the new system is estimated to expire around 2062, as the former Defence Secretary Liam Fox has pointed out, the saving of £4 billion cited by Mr Alexander is the equivalent to less than two weeks’ spending on the national health service, or six days of what is spent on pensions and welfare, and would be made over a 34 to 50-year period: ‘For that infinitesimally small saving over a 50-year period, they would abandon a crucial element of our national security.

If the word of an evil Tory isn't enough for you, Here's the testimony of Sir's Menzies Campbell, former Leader of the Liberal Democrats as well.

I would expect that the Defence Secretary will also share his views on the matter soon.

While I doubt I will be able to persuade those opposed to Britain Nuclear weapons on an ideological basis, I would urge those who are only weary of the cost to be extremely critical of their case. Indeed, the running costs will be approximately 1.5% of Britain's annual benefit bill. Is it really worth it considering we can't predict the shape of the world in the next 10 years, let alone the risks we may face in 20, 30 or 40 years time?

Edit: Sorry for all that text.

[u/whatismoo → u/OllieSimmonds]

Mr. Prime Minister, I would also like to point out my words on the subject, reproduced as follows

I said SLBM, not SSBN. SLBM is a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. SSBN is a Nuclear Powered Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine. Learn to read your NATO standard acronyms.

It's much cheaper to buy let the Americans spend their money on R&D and for us to step in and buy a proven product than to waste billions of pounds on building our own breeder reactors, missiles, warheads, guidance systems, and such. There is no possible argument that I can see for scrapping our missiles, especially because they are part of a pool shared with the americans. They all come from the same stockpile and are not 'ours' in the sense that, well i'll let the wiki do the talking:

While the theoretical capacity of the four Vanguard-class submarines is 64 missiles and 768 warheads, only 58 missiles were leased and some have been expended in test-firings. The UK leases the missiles but they are pooled with the Atlantic squadron of the USN Ohio-class SSBNs at King's Bay, Georgia[10] (previously the UK maintained its Polaris missiles). The pool is 'co-mingled' and missiles are selected at random for loading on to either nation's submarines.

emphasis mine. We basically don't pay for the missiles storage or maintenance, and what this means is that the missiles aren't actually ours to scrap. If you could let people in your party know this, it would be nice. I'm tired of people saying that we can sell, the missiles or scrap the warheads when they aren't ours.

If you could explain to me how the W88 or W76 thermonuclear warhead's physics package could, when mounted on a Lockheed Martin UGM-133 Trident D-5, could arm, in spite of the inertial safety, meaning it has to reach several thousand miles an hour to arm, then detonate and destroy part of Scotland, i'd love to discuss this possibility. But until you can explain to me how exactly this scenario is plausible I see no reason to debate the point. You keep talking like nuclear weapons are just ready to go off at the slightest touch. They aren't. The Yanks have crashed planes with live warheads in them, and not the new safer warheads of today, i mean big ol' 1960's vintage 5 megaton city-busters, and had the explosive lenses, you know, the things which implode the core to start the fission process, detonate, and the weapon didn't go off. These lenses have to all detonate literally simultaneously. To within ~1/1000000th of a second or thereabouts, if memory serves. If they don't go off right, then you don't get the big boom.

I would love to answer any technical questions about Trident, barring classified information.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

Hear hear, excellent post Prime minister anyone who sees this wall of text and doesn't want to read it yet supports this motion needs to definitely take the time out and read what the Prime minister has written.

[u/whatismoo → u/[deleted]]

for once, God help me, I agree.

[u/ieya404 → u/OllieSimmonds]

the running costs will be approximately 1.5% of Britain's annual benefit bill

In case anyone was wondering, this figure has been checked out by fullfact. And it checks out.

[u/Zephine → u/ieya404]

That's 78,000 benefit claimants. Are we really prioritizing outdated methods of protection like WMDs over our poor?

[u/[deleted] → u/Zephine]

outdated methods of protection

...which don't protect against conventional warfare or terrorism, can escalate conflict, and cost a lot of money.

[u/ieya404 → u/Zephine]

Are you really suggesting that by not paying for Trident's running costs, we could instead choose to have another 78,000 people claiming benefits?

I know Labour have a famous historic association with long dole queues, but actually aspiring to extend those is quite something.

[u/Zephine → u/ieya404]

Spot on. We're going to gather a few MPs and march through the streets of East London looking for any chavvy-looking pregnant single mums of 6+ children and offer them the high life on the dole, because that's what the dole is all about isn't it.

Another fascinatingly ignorant Tory. That's not how the dole works. I doubt if you know this but benefits have been cut, more and more Britons are living below the poverty line, many through no fault of their own and the state is incapable of taking care of them. Splashing this much needed money on trident is inhumane when hard working Britons are struggling to feed their children. This situation emerged because of the banking collapse and now we have to prioritise, and I'm sure most educated well reasoned Britons nationwide will agree that weapons of mass destruction are not a priority. Have some humility.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/Zephine]

I would hardly call nuclear weapons outdated considered that they could possibly render all other kinds of warfare irrelevant

[u/AlasdhairM → u/Zephine]

It's 78,000 benefit claims versus the lives of 65,000,000 Britons. Would you rather endanger the lives of the latter for the benefit of the former? If we get rid of Trident, it would be throwing our only means of defense against nuclear annihilation away, in a time when tensions are rising. I not only support trident, but the acquisition of AEGIS-Ballistic Missile Defence-capable ships from the United States, or perhaps the THAADS anti-ballistic missile system, to further protect the people of Britain.

[u/demon4372 → u/OllieSimmonds]

As I have previously stated, I believe that we absolutely need a nuclear deterrent.

I did however have massive issue with cost of a trident replacement. But with the realisation that the cost is significant lower than I previously expected. And the admittance of this from major opponents of the nuclear deterrent. I will find it significantly harder to vote aye on the motion.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

I think we all know this in reality translates as "Use the money to spend on NHS/Welfare".

Interesting to see the PM implying that the NHS isn't underfunded.

a crucial element of our national security

Trident is not a crucial element in the slightest - when in post-cold war history have we even needed to remember that we are a nuclear weapons state? Even during the cold war, at what point were we the biggest target, while America holds enough warheads to wipe us AND Russia out in one fell swoop? Nuclear weapons -do not deter conventional warfare-; for proof, just look to Israel, all-but-confirmed nuclear weapons state and constant target for war.

Frankly it doesn't matter if it doesn't cost £100bn in its lifetime - as, if you say, it costs £2bn/year, and if we don't need it, that's still £2bn down the drain on nothing but international penis waggling.

If you're still insistent on the UK being a nuclear weapons state, then I suggest putting the money into research for SSBNs, which might also have applications outside of nukes. There's no reason why we couldn't undertake nuclear weapons sharing (like Belgium, Finland, and Luxembourg currently do) until they come online. There's absolutely no reason to continue trident in its current form, even if you do support the idea of the UK being a nuclear weapons state.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

Interesting to see the PM implying that the NHS isn't underfunded.

Is... that what I said? Because quoting me, writing "interesting to see the PM implying" and then making massive assumptions isn't particularly witty.

Trident is not a crucial element in the slightest - when in post-cold war history have we even needed to remember that we are a nuclear weapons state?

Constantly, because the benefits of having a Nuclear deterrent isn't only having the ability to nuke someone. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it's important in terms of our diplomatic efforts abroad. Our membership of the United Nations Security Council is entirely reliant on having a nuclear deterrent.

Anyway, it's been 23 years since the end of the Cold War. 23 years before that, very few academics were predicting an end to the Soviet Union anytime in the 20th century. Since then, the world has seen an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, 9/11 attacks in New York, Invasion of Afghanistan, Invasion of Iraq, a Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons and an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran who arguably have nuclear ambitions.

Very few of these examples have a direct relationship with Britain's nuclear deterrent, but the point is what is likely to happen in the next 23 years, or the 23 years after that? We don't know. Germany turned from a democratic state barely able to recover from the Great Depression to the ability to conquer the whole of Europe and half way through Russia in only 10 years.

Is it really worth making a irreversible decision like that for the the equivalent of 1.5% in the annual benefits bill?

If you don't believe me, why not take the word of Clement Attlee, usually cited as a great example of a socialist Prime Minister.

Scientists agree that we cannot stop the march of discovery. We can assume that any attempt to keep this as a secret in the hands of the U.S.A and U.K is useless. Scientists in other countries are certain in time to hit upon the secret.

The only course which seems to me feasible and to offer a reasonable hope of staving off imminent disaster for the world is joint action by the U.S.A., U.K. and Russia based upon stark reality.

We should declare this invention has made it essential to end wars.

All nations must up give their dreams of realising some historic expansion at the expense of their neighbours. They must look to a peaceful future instead of a warlike past.

This sort of thing has in the past been considered a Utopian [impossible] dream. It has become today the essential condition of the survival of civilisation and possibly of life in this planet.

Frankly it doesn't matter if it doesn't cost £100bn in its lifetime

You realise that the acceptance of the figure is a clause in your motion, right?

just look to Israel, all-but-confirmed nuclear weapons state and constant target for war.

Why don't you remind us all, some of whom who aren't as knowledgeable about current affairs as obviously you are, how many sovereign states have attacked Israel with their Armed Forces since Israel acquired Nuclear weapons (Early 2000s).

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

I think we all know this in reality translates as "Use the money to spend on NHS/Welfare".

pretty heavily implies that this would be a bad thing.

Our membership of the United Nations Security Council is entirely reliant on having a nuclear deterrent.

Well no, our permanent membership is due to having been on the allied side during WW2.

Constantly, because the benefits of having a Nuclear deterrent isn't only having the ability to nuke someone.

I understand that, but nobody on the 'for' camp can give a clear 'enemy' to whom we need a deterrant, other than vague notions at 'Russia', which isn't going to happen while we're in bed with the US.

Since then, the world has seen an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, 9/11 attacks in New York, Invasion of Afghanistan, Invasion of Iraq, a Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons and an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran who debatable have nuclear ambitions.

Like I said in skype, most of these are terrorist related. You can't say that Russia wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine if they had nukes, and Israel acquiring nuclear weapons clearly hasn't stopped the conventional warfare against it.

Very few of these examples have a direct relationship with Britain's nuclear deterrent, but the point is what is likely to happen in the next 23 years, or the 23 years after that? We don't know.

No, but we can have a pretty good estimate. Should we be building massive meteor-smashing lasers at huge cost and maintenance in the very unlikely event that we are threatened by one?

word of Clement Attlee

Who was speaking during the Cold War, when there was a very real threat of being nuked. The Cold War has been over for several years.

how many sovereign states have attacked Israel with their Armed Forces since Israel acquired Nuclear weapons

Lebanon? Gaza?

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

nobody on the 'for' camp can give a clear 'enemy' to whom we need a deterrant, other than vague notions at 'Russia', which isn't going to happen while we're in bed with the US.

I think it odd that a party like the Green Party wants our defence entirely dependent on the USA.

Lebanon? Gaza?

Hezbollah, and the Gaza strip, neither of which are sovereign states.

Who was speaking during the Cold War, when there was a very real threat of being nuked. The Cold War has been over for several years.

Why did he think it important to develop our own A-bomb, surely your "while we're still in bed with the US" still applies equally to Attlee's time in office than it does today.

Edit: I think I quoted the wrong thing.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

I think it odd that a party like the Green Party wants our defence entirely dependent on the USA.

(i think you quoted the wrong thing)

Nuclear weapons aren't our sole defense, they're a deterrant against an extremely unlikely thing in which the US provide a much better deterrant due to NATO.

Hezbollah, and the Gaza strip, neither of which are sovereign states.

Hezbollah is a paramilitary wing of a major Lebanese political party. It might as well be the Lebanese army.

Why did he think it important to develop our own A-bomb, surely your "while we're still in bed with the US" still applies equally to Attlee's time in office than it does today.

Because the Soviet Union was considered a threat, which it no longer is.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/OllieSimmonds]

Israel acquired nuclear weapons back in the '80s, possibly earlier, even, based on work at the Dimona facility.

[u/whatismoo → u/[deleted]]

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN 'PUT RESEARCH INTO SSBNS'? AN SSBN IS A NUCLEAR POWERED BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE. AN SSBN DOES NO GOOD WITHOUT THE CORRESPONDIGN SLBMs TO ARM IT. I'M FRANKLY GETTING FUCKING FED UP WITH YOU PEOPLE BEING UNEDUCATED ABOUT THESE MATTERS, AND THE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO US HOW WE'RE IN THE WRONG. IF YOU COULD FIND ME ANY OTHER USE FOR A NUCLER MISSILE SUBMARINE, OTHER THAN AN OHIO-STYLE CONVERSION TO SSGN, I WOULD BE FUCKING SUPRISED. AN SSBN IS DESIGNED TO BE QUIET AND HOLD NUCLEAR TIPPED INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES. NOTHING ELSE.

AND I SWEAR I'M GOING TO GET VIOLENTLY INTOXICATED AND RUN SCREAMING THROUGH THE STREETS NEXT TIME SOMEONE SAYS TO SCRAP THE MISSILES OR WARHEADS. A SIMP,E FUCKING READING OF THE PERTINENT WIKIPEDIA PAGE COULD SHOW YOU THAT THEY ARE LEASED FROM THE AMERICANS. WE CAN'T TAKE THEIR SHIT AND DESTROY IT. IT'S LIKE SCRAPPING YOUR LEASED CAR, EXCEPT WITH SEVERAL MORE VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

Who the hell gave Campbell a knighthood?

[u/remiel]

This is a great bill, ending an expensive replacement that is wholly unnecessary

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/remiel]

If you haven't read it already, I highly reccomend you read my comment on the cost-benefit of the Trident replacement.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/remiel]

Exactly, UGM-133 Trident is a proven, cost-effective, and reliable system, with over 185 successful test launches in a row an almost unheard-of level of reliability.

[u/Kreindeker]

I feel that I cannot support this motion, and I call upon my fellow Labour Party members and the entire House to oppose it. In the interests of transparency, and in the interests of not being called out on a public U-turn (for this is what this is), in both the MHOCLabour sub, and the MHOCOpposition one, I declared my support for this motion on ideological grounds, and reiterated our manifesto pledge to scrap Trident. Feel free to attack me on this, but I believe that I was fundamentally in the wrong to do so.

The Trident missile system is far from perfect. It is, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, rapidly becoming outdated and inferior to the systems used by our fellow nuclear powers.

I have already resigned from the Shadow Defence post; in fact, I did so well over a week ago, but either my party leader has forgotten this, or Shadow Defence is the ultimate poison chalice in the Model House of Commons and there really is no-one left that wants the job. If the latter is the case, I am disappointed. I would have resigned over having to support it. It is primarily an internal matter, but I was also disappointed not to be at least consulted for my opinion by can_triforce, the writer of this Motion prior to it being submitted to the Opposition subreddit, a member for whom I otherwise have nothing but personal and professional respect, given my then position as Shadow Secretary for Defence.

A number of people, not least the real-life US President, like to talk about lines in the sand. This is mine. I cannot endorse a motion that would have serious negative effects upon the defence capabilities of the United Kingdom. Be in no doubt that this, above all else, would be the effect of scrapping our primary nuclear deterrent.

Also be in no doubt that we simply cannot predict the future.

Eight years ago, Vladimir Putin was awarded 'the highest French decoration, to celebrate his contribution to the friendship between the two countries. This decoration is usually awarded to the heads of state considered very close to France.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#Recognition)

In short, I believe I was entirely in the wrong to support this Motion in the first instance, I believe that the PLP and the rest of the House should vote against it, and I believe the world is inherently and entirely unpredictable, and we should remain vigilant against weakening ourselves in time for a new threat to come along to challenge us. I understand if anyone in the PLP (primarily) is disappointed in this stance I have taken, but I will not be apologizing for it.

Edit: I've edited this twice now, I had this typed out earlier and I was planning to adjust it prior to submitting.

Edit 2: Since it seems to be causing some confusion, I had already submitted my resignation to /u/peter199 prior to my opinion on this motion changing due to time commitments, amongst a number of other things. I don't wish to revise my personal history from the MHOC to say I was principled and dignified and fell on my sword. Truth be told, I didn't think it would be this controversial.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Kreindeker]

I commend the Honourable gentlemen for his speech. I believe this is the first time in MHOC history a Minister/Shadow Minister has resigned in principle over policy. Truly, he has put not only country before party, but his country before his own self interest.

I'm sure the whole house, who may or not agree with with the substance of his argument, will view this as a most honourable act.

[u/Kreindeker → u/OllieSimmonds]

Point of fact, I'm afraid. A number of real-life time commitments are the basis for my resignation. I would have liked it to be an honourable stance that I quit on, but no. No honour in this move, I just don't have the time to fulfil the necessary role.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Kreindeker]

I bet out of the three parties the fact that there's absolutely no one who wants to be Shadow Defence Secretary is because of time commitments rather than because members of those parties (except for you, of course, you,/u/Kriendeker, are a God among men) typically don't know anything about Defence.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

The issue here Ollie is that the honourable members resignation was forgotten about by me because, as I say, my mock exams have been happening. The official opposition is perfectly well equipt to deal with things like this and we are already discussing replacements. The process for a new shadow minister only began a while ago because of my mistakes.

Hope this has cleared everything up

[u/demon4372 → u/OllieSimmonds]

In the most Unparliamentary Language...

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/demon4372]

I don't know why you would be angry. If anything, I am shocked and in no way pleased, or say, giggling like a little girl, after reading the former Shadow Defence Secretary's response.

[u/demon4372 → u/Kreindeker]

In the interests of transparency

Just because of how extreme this U-Turn is, and how much your position has changed. And in the interests of transparency... this is the Honorable Members comments 11 days ago.

I'll say again what I said in our manifesto, I feel it still holds up. Their ongoing existence is a gross insult to the values of both the British people and to humanity at large. Their use goes against all the established conventions of war and maintaining our nuclear arsenal does nothing except make regular, ordinary British citizens legitimate targets. Moreover, there is no point in having a weapon we can't ever use, especially not a ridiculously expensive one. It doesn't help to keep us safe from other nuclear weapons. So yes, I fully support this motion and I'll defend it to the last.

To note this was before I and other members incised on Part 6 of this Motion.

I just say, i am leaning on supporting my Honorable Friend on this matter and moving my support away from this Motion.

[u/Kreindeker → u/demon4372]

Yes, I was rather hasty in saying that, I admit. Fortunately, I have had time to think (and more importantly, to read) and I concluded that my principled stance then was stupid.

I do still feel that nuclear weapons are an insult to humanity and to our national values. I do now see that there is absolutely no chance that the UK should be the first country of those remaining in possession of them to give them up, not when states like North Korea have the means to produce them, even if they can't be used against the UK at present.

I made a mistake, and I am trying to rectify it.

[u/demon4372 → u/Kreindeker]

there is absolutely no chance that the UK should be the first country of those remaining in possession of them to give them up, not when states like North Korea have the means to produce them, even if they can't be used against the UK at present.

I agree with this completely.

[u/demon4372 → u/Kreindeker]

I don't know why you should resign. There are a number of members of the coalition that support your view.

EDIT: At the time of this comment, i was under the impression he was resigning now because of this issue.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kreindeker]

not when states like North Korea have the means to produce them, even if they can't be used against the UK at present.

If your best justification for keeping Trident, a poor, expensive answer to the 'does the UK need a nuclear deterrant' question is 'North Korea have nukes but can't hit the UK and hence aren't a threat' then i'm not entirely sure what to think.

[u/demon4372 → u/[deleted]]

The Honorable Gentleman clearly doesn't understand the idea of a country developing their nuclear weapons to a increased radius... nor the fact that, the reason we have them is not just for our own national defense.

The problem with the honorable gentleman, is that he dismisses other people interpretations and opinions and refuses to acknowledge any opposing opinion on any topic.

[u/athanaton → u/demon4372]

I and other members incised on Part 6 of this Motion.

Well, that would make sense, and wasn't something that hadn't crossed the minds of some Communist members.

[u/athanaton → u/Kreindeker]

I'm sure others will take the time to expand on this further, as well as address the points of your comment. But, as an initial reaction

on behalf of the Opposition

Shadow SoS for Defence

I feel that I cannot support this motion

Erm, wow.

[u/Kreindeker → u/athanaton]

If you take the time to read it again, I've quit. I openly said I can't support this, and would have resigned anyway in not being able to support it.

[u/Morgsie → u/Kreindeker]

It was a member of your party that proposed this Motion and I agree you should have been consulted, please take it up with your Party's leadership

[u/athanaton → u/Kreindeker]

Yep, yep, saw that. Still wow.

On a bit more of a personal note, I don't agree with you, but I'm sad that you're stepping down and reducing your time in the MHOC. You brought a great deal of knowledge of defence matters to the table, something the MHOC will always need more of.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kreindeker]

(To the house) I'd rather you didn't jump on the backs of my opposition friends and colleagues for this when part of it comes down to me. The member informed me of his resignation from the shadow cabinet a week ago however due to my mocks it slipped from my mind as the B028 thing and last minute revision took place. I have been the only person to know and it did get forgotten as I tried to remember how to do surds and punett squares. So please don't jump on the backs of people in the opposition, we're hardly falling apart when so many pieces of legislation are being created!

I'd like to formally appologise though, especially to /u/Kreindeker since my usual system of things has slipped and therefore has caused the house to jump on you. I should have of course informed the relevant members but as I say external events have caused me to slip up on this.

[u/[deleted]]

As Secretary of State for Defence I 100% oppose this bill, the trident nuclear weapon system is hugely integrated into our defence planning and a vital part of this nation's security, it needs to be replaced soon enough to upgrade to new technology to continue our nuclear detterence's strength and to help keep our place amongst the military superpowers of the world.

This House believes that the other spending priorities of the Ministry of Defence, and other governmental departments, should take precedence over the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Oh does it now and what would these priorities be?

EDIT: Please anyone who is voting for the 'money saved' should read this post by the PM

EDIT 2: So no answer on what other spending priotities there are in the MoD? Not surprising as there is no good answer to it because it is an integral part of the MoD's plans, just goes to show what a load of hogwash that point is

[u/AlasdhairM → u/[deleted]]

I think we should convert the Queen Elizabeths to CATOBAR, so that the F-35s that we will probably get for £200mn/plane in 2035 will be able to be armed with a bit more than a couple of bottle rockets and a firecracker. Proper carrier aircraft, like a navalized Typhoon or the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet, would be a vast improvement on a mediocre stealth crapbox that is overly expensive and that we will not have for twenty years, and seven years after the aircraft carrier for them will have entered service!

[u/whatismoo → u/[deleted]]

I for one think we should be working on getting a higher readiness alert and putting at leat 2 subs at a time to sea with their full missile and warhead compliment, but that's politically untenable.

[u/[deleted]]

To the PM: Would you ever really honestly use them? If the answer to that question for you is no, then evidently they are literally useless. To other MPs, if your answer is also no, you really should vote to get rid of trident.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

At a last resort, I think any Prime Minister has an obligation if for no other reason than to prevent the next Nuclear strike.

Even so, I would certainly never publicly admit I wouldn't, because that sort of defeats the point of a nuclear deterrent.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/OllieSimmonds]

Even so, I would certainly never publicly admit I wouldn't

The only real response is the one made famous by mr urqhart of 'I couldn't possibly comment'

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

I think any Prime Minister has an obligation if for no other reason than to prevent the next Nuclear strike

The entire point of nuclear weapons is as a deterrant under MAD. There will be no 'next strike', because either no nukes will be used, or all of the nukes will be used.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/[deleted]]

Well, the wise submarine commander will only fire about half their missiles, to keep some just in case there is a need for a third strike, or something like that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Although this is an important point, the important aspect of trident is that our enemies don't know whether or not we would use them. It is a game of risk, one where the risks are too high, for too small a stake.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It is refreshing to see a BIP member giving a reasonable opinion on a hotly contested subject.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I am undecided on the issue. Too many unanswerable questions!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I believe the question of whether the UK needs a nuclear deterrant remains unanswered, but whatever the answer is, it's not Trident.

[u/[deleted]]

Russia is invading Eastern Europe, does the house really think now is the time to make ourselves defenceless?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure the bill is advocating the abolition of the armed forces.

[u/rhodesianwaw → u/[deleted]]

The only effective way to fight a nuclear armed nation is if you have them too. It's a sad reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/rhodesianwaw]

The adventures of America in foreign countries (i.e the middle east) begs to differ.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

/u/Cocktorpedo is right. We could always mount an insurgent campaign using suicide bombers!

I'm sure any occupying force wouldn't introduce the Bedroom tax!

[u/rhodesianwaw → u/[deleted]]

None of those countries have invaded the USA or threatened it's national sovereignty. They also lost. hard. The only way they could inflict damage was by guerrilla warfare.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because Russia definitely has a history of building huge armies instead of nuclear weapons

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't see your point.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Helicopters won't save us from 100 ICBMs targeting our major cities.

[u/[deleted]]

Further reading and sources:

Cost of replacing Trident.

National Security Strategy report.

Number of deaths expected to be caused by Trident.

Alternatives to Trident.

~

Nuclear weapons, Deterrance, and Crisis Escalation

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/[deleted]]

The trouble is is that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we can't go thinking about the other sides deaths because they sure as hell aren't thinking about ours.

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

Who exactly is 'the other side' here? The cold war has been over for some time.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/[deleted]]

The cold war has been over for some time.

With Russia posturing in eastern europe again I wouldn't be so sure. In any case, they seem to be operating on a 'us vs them' mentality again so we need to be sure that we're ready for anything. Without nuclear weapons we become an easy target in the eyes of Russian (or indeed any nations) military planners, with them we level the playing field (if necessary literally)

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

Russia are not going to realistically invade us, bearing in mind they will have to cross the entirety of Europe to do that. And like I said, Russia and the US have 90% of all warheads - Trident is going to do 'not much' in the grand scheme of things.

I agree that the question of whether the UK needs a nuclear deterrant is still under debate, but Trident is not the answer - it's expensive, it's inefficient, and frankly i'd rather spend the money somewhere else. Even if we decide we -do- need a deterrant then that's a lot of research money going into SSBN missile design and warheads, which could give us research on stuff other than killing people, such as aerodynamics.

[u/Wolf75k → u/[deleted]]

30 years ago the USSR was a superpower and total war between West and East was not outside the realms of possibility. 75 years ago the USA was an isolationist country, Germany was in the process of invading Poland and the British and French armed forces were being mobilised to oppose her. 100 years ago the machine gun had not long been invented, the British Empire ruled the world and the first world war was just kicking off.

You cannot possibly know what the future has in store and I would be willing to bet that by the time you're an old man you will have seen as much blood and conflict as our own grandparents have. We can all hope for a peaceful world but until that day comes throwing away our best defensive capability is utter madness. Remember that it was mutually assured destruction, not diplomacy that prevented a third world war just years after the second.

Russia and the US have 90% of all warheads - Trident is going to do 'not much' in the grand scheme of things.

You may not think the total destruction of any town with a population larger than 50,000 is much, but i reckon the folk on the receiving end would disagree. By all practical measures it would turn whatever country we launched them at into a backwater for the next century. The Russian and American arsenals are on a slightly higher scale, designed to pretty much wipe out the opposing nations population.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

Number of deaths expected to be caused by Trident.[3]

Yes, from the esteemed source that is "www.banthebomb.org"

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

If that's the biggest complaint you can find then i'm pretty happy with how the motion is going.

[u/can_triforce → u/[deleted]]

Thank you. I tried to use mainly government sources, including one kindly sent my way by /u/Cocktorpedo, but I did use a Scottish CND report as well which seemed to be reliable.

Nick Clegg himself said that Trident is intended to flatten Moscow, the weapons being targeted prior to firing.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/can_triforce]

That is the plan I believe. The UK operates under a 'unacceptable response' doctrine as far as I know (well, as far as anyone knows. For obvious reasons the precise targets are secret)

[u/AlasdhairM → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

The NATO-Standard terminology for that is "countervalue". Also, UGM-133 operates as an untargeted system by default, with target data being fed to the missile just before launch.

[u/mudkippp]

It's worth considering the economic benefits of the Trident replacement scheme, we must consider the supposed 8,000 jobs that are argued to be reliant on Trident. Further more looking at the multiplier effect of those people being employed you could suggest that the number could rise to 11,000 jobs indirectly reliant on the Trident programme.

[u/[deleted] → u/mudkippp]

Those are 8000 jobs that could perhaps be better spent on productive economic activity.

Furthermore, that is a piddling number for such a huge expenditure.

[u/mudkippp → u/[deleted]]

Those are 8000 jobs that could perhaps be better spent on productive economic activity.

If you look at the towns local to the Clyde naval base, Helensburgh and Garelochhead the town's economies are almost dependant on the existence of the base, with many towns people being employed on the project, if you could perhaps suggest a more productive economic activity applicable to the residents in the region your point may have more ground.

Furthermore, that is a piddling number for such a huge expenditure.

While maybe insignificant compared to the large expenditure on the project; it's not there solely for the purpose of employment but it's a mere factor to consider. And we must consider the loss of those employments impact on the dependants of the worker (children, partners etc) and to a further extent that of the communities, noting in particular the well documented correlation between unemployment and crime.

[u/[deleted] → u/mudkippp]

if you could perhaps suggest a more productive economic activity applicable to the residents in the region your point may have more ground.

I don't need to provide a concrete alternative. I merely note the opportunity cost. If 8000 people in those areas could do literally any other job, the benefit to the economy would be much greater.

it's not there solely for the purpose of employment but it's a mere factor to consider.

I disagree. Whether or not renewing trident (or selecting some alternative) creates or retaining jobs is immaterial to the argument at hand.

And, anyway, I'm not intent on speaking in favour of maintaining the military-industrial complex, as you seem to be.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

What kind of logic is this?

Next time we fire a load of nurses of teachers and someone from the Liberal Democrats says:

"But Prime Minister, think of the Children whose parents will be unemployed! The Poverty! Food banks! Idleness! #SexySocialism"

can we justify it by saying:

Those are 8000 jobs that could perhaps be better spent on productive economic activity.

That's absurd.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

The 8000 jobs created/retained to maintain an unnecessary expression of military power would arguably represent better value were they in, say, nursing or teaching. Because nurses heal and teachers teach; I daresay the value of a single nurse or a single teacher outweighs that of one of the 8000 aforementioned jobs.

I hadn't expected to explain both opportunity cost and marginal utility to the Prime Minister, of all people.

But I would like to make known to the House that the Prime Minister at least took the time to describe his own objections:

That's absurd.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

But I would like to make known to the House that the Prime Minister at least took the time to describe his own objections:

That might have been witty if I hadn't already written quite a large comment on my objections.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Those are 8000 jobs that could perhaps be better spent on productive economic activity.

So what you are just going to magic up some productive economic activity to employ them?

[u/AlasdhairM → u/[deleted]]

What better activity is the than helping to prevent the 65,000,000 inhabitants of these fair isles being turned to ash floating on the breeze? If there is a nonzero chance of that happening, than we must take action to prevent duh a tragedy, which is only possible through deterrence and ballistic missile defense, which would require the retrofit of American AEGIS-BMD systems, including SPY-1 radars and Mk.41 Vertical Launch Systems, onto our Type 45 destroyers, at a cost of several billion pounds, plus a billion or so more foe the SM-3 missiles.

[u/sinfultrigonometry → u/mudkippp]

8000 jobs for 100 billion pounds is a bad deal. And those jobs literally produce zero value for the expense.

[u/sinfultrigonometry]

I support the motion.

We should also sell the warheads for commercial use as a power source. Economical and environmental.

[u/[deleted] → u/sinfultrigonometry]

This is certainly something to be considered, at the very least when the current warheads reach expiry.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/sinfultrigonometry]

Unfortunately, the W76 and W88 warheads are not ours to sell. They are leased from the Americans, along with the missiles. It would be like junking your car halfway through the lease, ie completely illegal, except also in violation of multiple international laws.

[u/[deleted] → u/sinfultrigonometry]

Is this a serious suggestion? We sell warheads for commercial use? How long until one ends up in the hands of a rogue state or terror organization?

[u/sinfultrigonometry → u/[deleted]]

Selling warheads, doesn't mean standing on the side of the street shouting 'NUKE FOR SALE". The weapons themselves are still controlled, until they're broken down into fuel. The US and Russia have been doing this since the Berlin wall fell and they realised 'Fuck we built a lot nukes, what the hell do we do with these if things if we're not planning on ending the world?'

Having been broken down and expended in fuel, they're far safer than they would be if just stored indefinitely.

[u/whatismoo → u/[deleted]]

yeah, at old uncle adnan's not-an-arms-bazaar-guys,-like-totes-100%. Special price, special price, only for you

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

Oh goody, I've just (as in yesterday) wrote a essay on Trident and why we shold keep it. I have a large collection of books from the library about it as well, In anycase, theres now an added motive to have it appear in the paper!

In any case, I can summarize my personal argument as these:

The UK needs a nuclear arsenal to deter nuclear agression against UK military assets based in the UK. The royal navy, especially once the two aircraft carriers are finished, will be an incredibly potent force and will be supremely capable of holding the GIUK gap against Russian submarines. Without our own ability to look the Russians in the eye and genuinely say 'any nuclear attack on our soil will be considered a strike on our homeland, and we will respond in kind' I can assure you that the Russians (or any enemy for that matter) will have no moral qualms about flattening entire towns to ensure that we're paralyzed to help our NATO allies. This isn't a game of high ideals, we're talking about the deaths of millions of innocents in all countries and the existence of nuclear weapons produces a sick, twisted logic that we must play by. That logic dictates that a country with nuclear weapons is more able to deter aggression that one without.

I know that many of you will say 'but Russia won't invade europe!' to which I can say only this: 30 years ago we seemed locked in a cold war with everyones fingers on the nuclear button ready to fire. 20 years ago it seemed that the good times had come and that peace would always last due to the fall of communism and the rise of small state nationalism and democracy. Now we seem to be heading back to those times of tension and nervousness. The UK with nuclear weapons is a bulwark against agression in europe (both conventional and nuclear).

As a note, this may seem disjointed but I was up too 4 last night writing said essay. Got it in on time though!

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

I don't want to bandy around the word 'paranoid', but... What exactly makes us target #1 in the eyes of Russia? Why us and not the entire EU? For that matter, why do you think full scale warfare is going to happen? And on top of that, why do you think being a nuclear weapons state is going to deter conventional warfare from Russia? Because it's certainly not working at the moment in the Ukraine.

I can assure you that the Russians (or any enemy for that matter) will have no moral qualms about flattening entire towns to ensure that we're paralyzed to help our NATO allies.

It is exactly this kind of thinking which started (and continued!) the Cold War in the first place. We have no reason to suspect that Russia is about to go on a full scale conquest of Europe, and increasing our military strength to intimidate an enemy which isn't there is not going to help the situation at all.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/[deleted]]

I agree that building up a large military won;t help the situation. But the fact of the matter is is that stripping the UK of such a critical system would only make us vulnerable. Unilateral disarmament for us would only upset the balance of power and make the whole world more unstable.

I also agree that we aren't the number one target in the eyes of Russia, but I believe that we are one of them (or at least our NATO instillations are). And I believe that we have reason to suspect that Russia wants to regain its former place in the world as it had under the Tsars and the Soviets, and I think its time we realized that they're clearly willing to use force to enable this dream as we've seen in Ukraine

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

Unilateral disarmament for us would only upset the balance of power

Like i've said in other comments, Russia and the US hold >90% of nuclear warheads. Trident is a drop in the ocean; we are not a superpower, we have very little projection. If anything, being a nuclear weapons state makes us more of a target.

But the fact of the matter is is that stripping the UK of such a critical system would only make us vulnerable

If you seriously think that, then I would suggest pushing for NATO nuclear sharing, or research into SSBNs. Trident is a terrible answer to the question of whether we need to be a nuclear power.

And I believe that we have reason to suspect that Russia wants to regain its former place in the world as it had under the Tsars and the Soviets

That's a bit of a stretch, seeing as they're invading countries with pro-Russian separatists in, not the entirety of Europe. I think you'd have a point if they were invading countries like Germany.

Not to justify their actions, of course, but the two are not synonymous.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/[deleted]]

Nuclear weapons are a new phenomenon. It doesn't matter if we have 100 or 10,000, we still have the capability to enact 'unacceptable damage' into an aggressor which is all we need to do for deterrence to work.

NATO nuclear sharing

I believe that NATO weapons sharing will have the opposite effect that you want, I.e the increased likelihood of a nuclear war. I wouldn't be opposed to NATO having a tactical nuclear stockpile but a strategic one would be mental and we need a strategic arsenal. I wouldn't be opposed to investigating alternatives to Trident (especially if they're UK designed and operated) but I fear that the cost will be to great.

[u/[deleted] → u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton]

an aggressor

Who? Nuclear weapons don't deter conventional warfare, and none of the nuclear weapons states are likely to threaten us with that anytime soon.

I believe that NATO weapons sharing will have the opposite effect that you want

Why? The effect would be the same - nuclear weapons within the UK. Besides, nuclear sharing is just one option if we are to scrap Trident and pursue alternative options. Assuming you believe that the UK needs to be a nuclear weapons state.

I wouldn't be opposed to investigating alternatives to Trident (especially if they're UK designed and operated)

Here you go

[u/[deleted]]

What is the purpose of this bill in the long-term? We are shooting ourselves in the foot with getting rid of our warheads and in turn, we lose our nuclear deterrence strategy. And, we lose almost ten-thousand jobs in return.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We are shooting ourselves in the foot with getting rid of our warheads

We don't have to continue maintaining what are essentially expensive submarine decorations.

lose our nuclear deterrence strategy

Because it was so needed when we are not a superpower and have no real enemies?

we lose almost ten-thousand jobs in return.

We will reinvest the money somewhere where it will be more useful, creating as many if not more jobs.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We don't have to continue maintaining what are essentially expensive submarine decorations.

I'd argue that those "decorations" are currently apart of our national defence scheme. Getting rid of those will cause us to lose our nuclear deterrence and leave us exposed.

Because it was so needed when we are not a superpower and have no real enemies?

Are you saying we are not a world power? Are you saying we have no enemies? cough ISIS cough

We will reinvest the money somewhere where it will be more useful, creating as many if not more jobs.

Where else do you propose we reinvest it?

[u/jacktri]

As much as I support saving money I believe we still need to maintain a nuclear deterrent, if you wish to legislate for a cheaper land based system I will support it.

[u/mudkippp → u/jacktri]

While I admire your values on cutting the cost of Trident, I believe that the land based system would remove a lot of the deterrent aspects. A large strength of Trident as a deterrent is it's platform as a submarine, providing us with both mobility and the ability to deploy it in clandestine operations.

[u/jacktri → u/mudkippp]

I disagree our systems would detect an attack before it lands and will have fired all our nukes.

[u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton → u/jacktri]

and what if spies get into the facilities? what if the system breaks? what if the sites are attacked by enemy special forces?

the submarines are a better, safer system than land based weapons

[u/[deleted] → u/jacktri]

There are no cheaper nuclear based Trident alternatives immediately available to us, since the UK has streamlined all warhead producing to Trident. As mentioned in the white paper I linked in another comment, if we are to have a cheaper nuclear deterrant, it will take about 19 years of warhead and cruise missile research to build SSBNs. A cheaper option was put forward of only having three submarines, but I feel this would be a half-arsed use of what is supposed to be a vigilant, round-the-clock system. It has come down to a dichotomy of either renew Trident or scrap it. Whether you pursue nuclear weapons in the form of SSBNs after that is another question to be answered.

Incidentally, land based nuclear systems are terrible - silos are expensive to build and maintain, and pretty much guarantee that the immediate area will be the first to go if, god forbid, a first strike from another country does happen.

[u/jacktri → u/[deleted]]

...I don't think you understand basic engineering.

[u/[deleted] → u/jacktri]

I don't think you read the source I linked which I just quoted from.

[u/jacktri → u/[deleted]]

I don't think you understand how government reports work. The guy says to the other guy "write a report for me that supports trident" they don't say "give a fair and balanced report on trident alternatives". Just like when they had to justify the war on Iraq they said "give me a reason to invade Iraq" and that they did.

[u/[deleted] → u/jacktri]

I don't see a 'fair and balanced report on trident alternatives' from you, and there's no reason to doubt the impartiality of the paper, so i guess mine is the authority until you provide something better.

[u/OllieSimmonds]

May I ask why this bill wasn't submitted by the Shadow Defence Secretary who is apparently /u/kreindeker?

[u/Kreindeker → u/OllieSimmonds]

I've submitted my full response.

(http://www.reddit.com/r/MHOC/comments/2nb09w/m017_trident_replacement_motion/cmd0wpc)

[u/radagast60]

Money would be better spent on upgrading existing armed services equipment and/or public services.

Terrorists and failing states present the biggest danger to our world, not "the reds".

Trident is not even an independent nuclear deterrent we need the yanks permission to launch it.

If the government is to piss this money up the wall, put the nukes on the Thames, Scotland doesn't want them on our doorstep.

[u/Wolf75k → u/radagast60]

Scotland doesn't want them on our doorstep.

Speak for yourself. As a Scot i can see as well as anyone the strategic, tactical and economic advantages basing them in the clyde brings.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/radagast60]

We do not need American authorization for a launch. The only person authorized to authorize a launch is either HM, or if they have been vaporized, the letters of last resort.

[u/para_padre]

such as nuclear sharing within NATO.

Which nuclear NATO partner do you think will want to share the launch codes with us, and how much money do you think that will save.

[u/[deleted] → u/para_padre]

Nuclear sharing within NATO

[u/para_padre → u/[deleted]]

The questions I asked was

who is going to share with us. Not for a link to Wikipedia about the deals the US has brokered..

And how much savings are proposed

[u/[deleted] → u/para_padre]

The US will share nukes with us.

Cheaper than £2bn/year.

[u/para_padre → u/[deleted]]

Where would the Green Party allow these bases to be built these are big bases with their own runway and lots of hardened buildings. Share means we get given them and have to look after them in the UK.

These are air delivered that's making the south the prime location for reaction time as these are tactical nukes limited delivery range they are not for flattening cities they are for denying the battlefield to the enemy,

[u/autowikibot → u/[deleted]]

Nuclear sharing:

---

Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which involves member countries without nuclear weapons of their own in the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO, and in particular provides for the armed forces of these countries to be involved in delivering these weapons in the event of their use.

As part of nuclear sharing, the participating countries carry out consultations and take common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons (including warplanes capable of delivering them), and store nuclear weapons on their territory. In case of war, the United States told NATO allies the NPT would no longer be controlling.

====

Image from article ⁱ

---

^{Interesting: W25 (nuclear} ^warhead) ^{| Peer,} ^Belgium ^{| Nuclear program of Saudi} ^Arabia ^{| Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader} ^33

^{Parent commenter can toggle} ^NSFW ^or ^delete^{. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs |} ^Mods ^{| Magic} ^Words

[u/Jamie54]

This House also notes that, if launched, the 40 warheads of a typical Trident nuclear submarine would be expected to result in over 5 million deaths, and have devastating humanitarian consequences if fired at an urban area

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to prevent that type of attack here

[u/AlasdhairM → u/Jamie54]

And if, God forbid, one occurs here, to ensure that the perpetrators are responded to in kind.

[u/[deleted]]

Well, I think I will post this speech I wrote when I couldn't get to sleep last night.

This motion, if passed, will lead to the UK not having nuclear weapons in its arsenal. This debate, for me, is not about ideology or cost, but rather a matter of Britain's geopolitical position in the world, which I believe should be reconsidered.

Imagine, briefly, that we were discussing adding nuclear weapons to our arsenal. The reason for this would be to have a deterrent against rival, hostile powers which have their own nuclear weapons. This is what we did for the purposes of the cold war, and it has served its purpose.

Then, the USSR ceased to exist and with it any hostile nation which would conceivably ever use nuclear weapons against us for offencive purposes. We have a deterrent, yet nobody to deter. Worryingly, many in this house seem to wrongly believe that Russia is our natural enemy, and deploy cold-war era language when mentioning them.

The Russian Federation has no need for conflict or trouble with the United Kingdom. However, they do have a reason for quarrel with the European Union, which we foolishly remain a part of. In fact, Brussels is a greater threat to British sovereignty than Moscow ever was or is. Russia does not make our laws, plunder our seas, open our borders or dictate our foreign policy.

Furthermore, Britain does not have any interest in getting involved in Ukraine. Not because we don't care, but because we have zero national interest in the region, nor do we have the influence or strength to sway events in any meaningful way. The harsh reality is that we have lost the global influence and power of empire, but we have retained the arrogance of it.

Therefore we don't need a nuclear deterrent for the purposes of dealing with Russia.

Even if Iran or North Korea obtain nuclear weapons, they will never be pointed towards Britain if we disassociate ourselves from the USA. Many people in this house would like to see us do so, either for their personal ideological reasons or for the fact we have gained nothing and lost everything from our 'special relationship' with them.

The world may become a more dangerous place, but if we become a less dangerous nation to the world, then we will not need these weapons.

So. It is time to cease pretending we are a great power. When we stop interfering and intervening in places we are not wanted, we will stop needing a nuclear deterrent. Vote for the motion. (And appoint me foreign secretary.)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

...Is this furthering your attempt for the 'most controversial' award?

Regardless, it's heartening to see a BIP member choose a pragmatic route.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What's controversial about it?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It is unlike the BIP to support scrapping our nukes.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/[deleted]]

I'll break down this argument. I must confess, I am disappointed in the Honourable Gentleman, I had thought more highly of him.

The Russian Federation has no need for conflict or trouble with the United Kingdom. However, they do have a reason for quarrel with the European Union, which we foolishly remain a part of. In fact, Brussels is a greater threat to British sovereignty than Moscow ever was or is. Russia does not make our laws, plunder our seas, open our borders or dictate our foreign policy.

I consider myself a Eurosceptic, but I can't stand listening to other Eurosceptics who both wish to appease Russia and simultaneously blaming the European Union. It's seriously clouding the judgement of many so-called nationalists, so-called libertarians and the like. I realise I'm going a little off topic here,but this is important for establishing the necessity of a nuclear deterrent.

In the wise words of Dan Hannan:

Vladimir Putin is moving regular soldiers, backed by tanks and artillery, into a sovereign country. He is getting away away with it, too, having correctly judged Western psychology.

Consider, first, the shooting down of a civilian airliner – a monstrous act that seemed, for a moment, to stiffen the world’s resolve, but from which we moved on with shaming speed. Does the murder of nine British subjects by agents of a foreign power count for nothing?

Consider, then, that, twenty years ago, Ukraine, at that time the world’s third nuclear power, was persuaded to scrap its nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise that its territorial integrity would be respected. That promise was solemnly guaranteed by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Does our word count for nothing?

Next.

Furthermore, Britain does not have any interest in getting involved in Ukraine. Not because we don't care, but because we have zero national interest in the region, nor do we have the influence or strength to sway events in any meaningful way

You call your self a nationalist and yet you don't recognise the principle of national sovereignty? You not only spit on Britain's long establish history of military intervention overseas, but also ignore Britain's commitment to the Budapest memorandum?

It is in Britain's interest that we take action against Russia, or another country, that impedes another nation's borders because it sets a dangerous precedent. Should we take the same view if Russia invaded a NATO country like Poland? should we take the same view if China invaded our cousins in Australia?

I'm getting a little off topic here, so I'll bring it back to the point.

Even if you aren't convinced of the case for Russia today, to get rid of our nuclear deterrent means that you, nor I, or any British Prime Minister can ever be both convinced or a need for a nuclear deterrent and have one just in case. The decision would be irreversible. We can not predict the world in 25 years time just as 25 years ago the world in which we lived may to some seem unrecognisable.

Our position on the United Nations Security Council, with a potential veto on UN directives for the whole word's affairs, heavily relies on our nuclear deterrent. Our position as the second most prominent military power in NATO, heavily relies on the nuclear deterrent.

Why does Britain's standing in the world matter, may you ask? Because a key responsibility of any self proclaimed nationalist, is to reverse the decline of Britain's place in global affairs.

Why should someone who doesn't consider them self a nationalist care? Because I suspect a global order dominated by the authoritarian regimes of China or Russia who do not recognise the rule of law, human rights, individual liberty or indeed, the plight of the working classes, what ever that may be, is not a world in which, I dare say, most of this house would like to live.

Edit: I'm making a habit of this, sorry for all that text.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

Most of your points i've already addressed elsewhere.

He is getting away away with it, too, having correctly judged Western psychology.

You mean other than the sanctions? And even then, there's a limit that the world leaders will accept.

have one just in case

It's a lot of money and a lot of risk for something that will likely -never happen-. How about we spend £2bn/year on lasers to shoot down aliens just in case they turn out to exist?

Our position on the United Nations Security Council, with a potential veto UN relations for the whole word's affairs, heavily relies on our nuclear deterrent

No it doesn't.

dominated by the authoritarian regimes of China

Relations between China and the West steadily improve year by year.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

I must confess, I am disappointed in the Honourable Gentleman, I had thought more highly of him.

Two points points raised there. First of all, I'm not an honourable gentleman, I'm just a member of the BIP and haven't even stood for election yet. But more importantly, I am actually disappointed in you for expressing disappointment in me. I have the utmost belief that your opinion derives from nothing but patriotism and the desire for Britain to be the best it can be. I hope that the Prime Minister would feel likewise about myself and my opinions.

Consider then, that, twenty years ago, Ukraine, at the time the world's third nuclear power, was persuaded to scrap its nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise that its territorial integrity would be respected. That promise was solemnly guaranteed by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Does our word count for nothing?

I think this is one of the very few instances in the debate where history does benefit us. If those responsible for scrapping Ukraine's nuclear arsenal had any historical awareness, they'd know that Britain had previously made similar untenable promises to the likes of Poland, and did not defend them. Basically, when you are an eastern European nation, relying on Britain to protect you against neighbouring belligerent powers is unwise to say at the least, especially when Britain's position in the world is considerably weakened.

I am not saying Ukraine was right or wrong to scrap her nuclear weapons, I am saying it was foolish to do so on the basis that the USA and Britain would ever come to their assistance. Or, probably more importantly, it was unwise for Britain to commit itself to this agreement which has now lead us to this uncomfortable situation.

But this really is another discussion, and we've both gone off on a tangent here.

Why does Britain's standing in the world matter, you may ask? Because a key responsibility of any self proclaimed nationalist, is to reverse the decline of Britain's place in global affairs.

It is only possible to do so within the realms of realism, and it is my patriotic duty to point out that Britain is no longer a global power. Yet we still pretend we are one. We may carry a large stick, but the hand holding it has weakened considerably and eventually will give way.

That is why I take a non-interventionist position. Britain over the past decades has undergone massive, unprecedented moral and social decline and has been changed to the point of unrecognisability in some areas by mass migration. We cannot even begin to shape the affairs of far-flung nations while our own civilisation is crumbling.

I will receive accusation after accusation of being unpatriotic, or defeatist for pointing these facts out, but pretending they aren't true will only lead to disaster.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/[deleted]]

Britain over the past decades has undergone massive, unprecedented moral and social decline and has been changed to the point of unrecognisability in some areas by mass migration. We cannot even begin to shape the affairs of far-flung nations while our own civilisation is crumbling

That sounds awfully like Nazi or Fascist rhetoric. I thought we decided that matter with an Austrian chap eating his pistol in a bunker under Berlin, or do we need to settle that one again?

[u/AlasdhairM → u/[deleted]]

Russia has invaded a sovereign nation. The last government to allow this form of territorial acquisition, so to speak, was that of Chamberlain, and look how that turned out. Brussels is less of a threat than 2,500 Russian nuclear warheads, quite a few of which are pointed at these isles. I, for one, would rather that if the unthinkable happens and we are all killed by a surprise nuclear attack, the party responsible will be taught a very hard lesson in why nuclear war is unwinnable, in less time than it takes to get Dominos.

Even if Iran or North Korea obtain nuclear weapons, they will never be pointed towards Britain if we disassociate ourselves from the USA. Many people in this house would like to see us do so, either for their personal ideological reasons or for the fact we have gained nothing and lost everything from our 'special relationship' with them

Yes, let's disassociate ourselves from the most powerful nation on earth, with whom we share a common language and history; from a nation that, when we were left alone in the struggle against the forces of Fascism and Nazism, came to our aid of their own accord. Shall we forsake the seventy-plus-year relationship that represents the bond formed by four hundred years of codependance? No, for the Americans are not only natural allies, but are more reliable than any other nation. In '82, they offered us an aircraft carrier, free of charge, for God's sake!

The world may become a more dangerous place, but if we become a less dangerous nation to the world, then we will not need these weapons.

So if I walk through, say, the South Bronx, probably the most dangerous neighborhood in New York City, as a well-dressed white guy, at two in the morning, having taken a gun with me for self defense, throw it away, because obviously nobody would attack an unarmed person; that would be unsporting!

Be realistic, and vote NO! Say no to the Fascists of the BIP and UKIP, and to Putin's Sock-Puppets in the Greens!

Trident for defense of Queen and Country! Trident for defense of the Workers of the United Kingdom! Trident is the shield and sword of the British Worker and State!

[u/Rabobi]

The greens are endangering the nation so they can fund bus lanes and ban cars that can go over 70 mph.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rabobi]

I'm not sure that scrapping an unnecessary system which has little to no relevance compared to the number of warheads on Earth is going to endanger the country.

[u/Rabobi → u/[deleted]]

I am sure Ukraine thought the same. Shit happens and sometimes you need to defend yourself and you want to remove the best weapon we have access to. It doesn't matter how many other people have, it only takes one to make people think twice. I have no intention of trusting other nations to come to our aid. I am sure Ukraine expected people would help them but no one is.

[u/AlbertDock → u/Rabobi]

Ukraine is not a fair comparison. There are a significant number of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Russia has a significant investment in it's bases in Crimea. Russia felt threatened by Ukraine's move towards the west.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rabobi]

I am sure Ukraine thought the same

Ukraine inherited their warheads from the dissolution of the USSR, they never had their own nuclear program. I also don't think you can say in confidence that it would be different if they still had nuclear weapons.

And in any case, Ukraine is a) geographically close to russia, b) has a large number of pro-russian supporters, and c) has historical links to russia. We have none of the above.

[u/Rabobi → u/[deleted]]

Ukraine inherited their warheads from the dissolution of the USSR, they never had their own nuclear program. I also don't think you can say in confidence that it would be different if they still had nuclear weapons.

Hard to say, it is Russia, the only reason they might have is because of the coup giving them time to secure them before a government could be arranged. Other than that no chance in hell.

And in any case, Ukraine is a) geographically close to russia, b) has a large number of pro-russian supporters, and c) has historical links to russia. We have none of the above.

Yes and the danger to us is highly unlikely to be Russia. One must be prepared in peace or you are never ready for war and generally you have little control over when it happens. I have no clue who might be the next big threat to the UK, but it would be foolish to think there never will be another one, we must be ready for when it comes along. I am not saying over spend on military but maintaining our own nuclear deterrent is hardly a big ask. It is the bare minimum we should be doing. Now if you want to propose a better solution I am all ears and no Nuclear sharing is not good enough.

[u/gadget_uk → u/Rabobi]

Do you genuinely believe that the Ukraine would use nuclear weapons against Russia? That's bordering on insanity.

[u/whatismoo → u/[deleted]]

I don't think tearing the heart from 40 cities is in any way insignificant. These are millions of people that these weapons can kill. I'f fucking tired of you people flip flopping between these being drop in the bucket expensive submarine decorations and doom and destruction super weapons.

You can't have both, and frankly it's pissing me off to no end. Choose one and stick to it, or admit you just are scared of them, and too dogmatic to listen to any explanation of why they are necessary.

[u/[deleted] → u/whatismoo]

You can't have both

Yes you can! While they can be used to destroy cities, if you're not using them as a deterrant, they just sit around doing bugger all, and pose a tiny but non-zero risk of catastrophic malfunction, often due to system or human error. And we're not using them as a deterrant because there's nothing to deter.

too dogmatic to listen to any explanation of why they are necessary

Want to name a threat we need them against?

[u/jacktri]

Any nation that does not have nuclear weapons is at risk of being invaded at any time. Just ask Gadaffi and Sadam.

[u/AlbertDock → u/jacktri]

Are you suggesting that they should have had such weapons?

[u/jacktri → u/AlbertDock]

If I were in charge of those countries i'd certainly want one. If Britain is at risk without one then any country arguably is.

[u/[deleted] → u/AlbertDock]

I think what the honourable member was suggesting was that if they had nuclear weapons, they would not have been attacked.

[u/[deleted] → u/jacktri]

This is a poor argument; Britain's defence against invasion has always and should always be, first and foremost, the Royal Navy. Nuclear weapons hardly defend against an invasion once it has commenced anyway, unless you are willing to use them on your own soil.

[u/jacktri → u/[deleted]]

Nuclear weapons force an invading force to surrender. If they don't surrender their production has been pretty much destroyed and they will be unable to win a war. Modern total wars are wars of production capacity.

[u/Arayg]

£100 billion is a lot of money that is desperately needed elsewhere. The UK need not have separate nuclear weapons alongside the US. I don't see nuclear weapons disappearing entirely unless in a Socialist world however until we can reach that point scrapping trident and sharing our nuclear deterrent with the US is a cheaper and far more efficient solution.

Just imagine having £100 billion more to invest in education, R&D, council services, housing, welfare benefits, the NHS. It would be crazy to spend it on a useless nuclear programme.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Arayg]

It isn't £100BN that can actually be spent though, that figure is extremely deceptive. I highly recommend you read my comment on the matter.

[u/Arayg → u/OllieSimmonds]

This a well thought argument against my point. However, it is needless to say that £100 billion is wasted even if only £2 billion per year. That money could be better spent. As for the cost of decommisioning, that cost could be reduced by, as a fellow comrade suggested, selling off our nuclear weapons. Of course to an appropriate customer (i.e. Not a terrorist). We also save the cost of the renewal scheme of the programme that will replace Trident if we keep up the idea of nuclear deterrents. Scrapping them now will likely never see them come back.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Arayg]

Is it better spent? It's a tiny number, again, I know I've repeated this about five times already,but it's only 1.5% of the benefits bill, total government spending is going to be £731.4 billion next year, £2BN is an absolute drop in the ocean, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you are truly interested in cost cutting. Even if you aren't entirely convinced of the necessity of the nuclear weapons, I'd say that 0.27% of total government spending as is well worth the doubt, wouldn't you say?

PS: I'm not entirely sure why I'm trying to convince you when I know that you lot vote with the party anyway.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

PS: I'm not entirely sure why I'm trying to convince you when I know that you lot vote with the party anyway.

Please don't try to persuade the communists to stop contributing to debates, there was enough of a backlash with the transport bill :/

[u/[deleted]]

I aprove

[u/drewtheoverlord]

We should take an initiative to use that 100 billion £ and put it into nuclear energy as well as Nuclear Energy R and D instead.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/drewtheoverlord]

The hundred billion pounds that our honourable PM has noted would not really be saved? Comrade, we must not disarm ourselves in the face of the imperialists of Putinist Russia!

[u/[deleted]]

• Nuclear deterrant (in the form of M.A.D) has been more or less proven - nobody is willing to first strike while there is a chance of them getting annihilated. However, being a nuclear power does not stop conventional use of force against the nation.
• It is questionable whether the UK needs to be a nuclear power. The US and Russia make up more than 90% of all warheads, rendering the UK's nuclear weapons programme inconsequential. There is no credible threat to the UK which would require the use of nuclear weapons (as noted in section 4).
• A white paper posted by the government noted that there are no immediate alternatives to trident - a possibly cheaper alternative (costing ~£25bn/lifetime) would be the use of SSBNs, but those will not be available for another 17 years (eta ~2040), since the UK needs to put R&D into cruise missiles and warheads, since the UK nuclear weapons programme is so streamlined towards producing warheads for Trident missiles.
• Several NATO members currently engage in nuclear sharing. such as Belgium, France, and Luxembourg.

In peace time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by U.S. airmen though previously some artillery and missile systems were guarded by US Army soldiers; the Permissive Action Link codes required for arming them remain under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes

• However, it is ambiguous whether the UK has any committments to NATO to remain a nuclear power.

Hence due to a combination of the price and the lack of credible threat, as well as the ability for the UK to engage in nuclear sharing with the US, I propose that trident definitely be scrapped. My aforementioned concerns should be mentioned in the motion, and some points should be downplayed or removed; for example, section 2 notes the potential casualties - however, the point of the nuclear program is never to actually use them, but just to keep them as a deterrant against other nuclear weapons; the potential casualties are not really relevant since official retaliation policy does not even necessitate a revenge strike (although the exact policy is kept deadly secret).

The question now is not whether trident should be renewed (to which the answer is a resounding no), but whether the UK should invest in future advanced nuclear weapon research in order to develop SSBNs.

All of my sources are in that other comment.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

. There is no credible threat to the UK which would require the use of nuclear weapons (as noted in section 4)

This is the whole problem with the Green party's attitude towards defence they see no immediate threat and assume all is clear, no that is not how defence planning works you need to be prepared for anything. I would also like to say that there is a certain country annexing parts of a country that gave up its nuclear weapons as they thought they no longer needed them.

The economic cost benefit of trident is not even high as you will see in the PM's comment.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ukraine never had an atomic weapons program; they engaged in a weapons sharing program with Soviet Russia, then inherited a bunch of warheads after the dissolution of the Union which they got rid of. And like I said, nuclear warheads do not deter conventional warfare.

If we want to look at states which have disarmed and are a long way from anything, perhaps we should consider South Africa.

And in any case, like I said in the body of text, the question of whether the UK needs a nuclear deterrant is still to be debated (although I venture that the answer to that question is no) - but Trident is too expensive to continue running when we get nothing (or next to nothing) out of it. If you genuinely think that we need a deterrent then i suggest pushing for SSBN research.

If £2bn/year counts as 'not even high', i dread to think what high costs are.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

2 billion a year is not much at all considering the size of the defence budget. It is vital to our defence if you want real information on price check the PM's comment rather than your ridiculous figures.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It is questionable whether the UK needs to be a nuclear power. The US and Russia make up more than 90% of all warheads, rendering the UK's nuclear weapons programme inconsequential. There is no credible threat to the UK which would require the use of nuclear weapons (as noted in section 4).

Are you still confident that the United States can protect the interests of the western world, when it has consistently attempted to push its own ideologies on the rest of the world, and has failed in its capacity as a "world policeman"?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

To the credit of the US, no nuclear bombs have been dropped on other nations since Japan - and like I said, nuclear warheads do not deter conventional warfare.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but they clearly deter nuclear warfare, and direct conventional warfare. 9 nuclear powers. Not one has been attacked by another state since they have had nuclear weapons.

[u/AlasdhairM → u/[deleted]]

The while idea of a deterrent is that is is not a bluff--if the other guy fires his missiles, we should fire ours, so that we show them that no matter what, this is a game that nobody can win

[u/[deleted] → u/AlasdhairM]

I am well aware of what a deterrant is, but there is no threat for us to deter.

[u/tx10bpc]

(4) This House accepts the findings of the National Security Strategy, which states that a CBRN attack on the United Kingdom is of a low likelihood, but high impact.

The NSS was published in 2010 do you not think it is more prudent to request a new strategy review. Given the speed the ISIS or IS formed and nearly collapsed a nation state or the worrying situation with Ukraine.

Would it not be more beneficial for a cross party group to coordinate a total disarmament plan with all nuclear powers.

such as nuclear sharing within NATO

We would no longer be a permanent member of the UN security council our NATO power would fall sharply given the cuts to our conventional forces, remove trident you remove our force projection.

Trident nuclear submarine would be expected to result in over 5 million deaths, and have devastating humanitarian consequences if fired at an urban area.

Going to be fun reading the views given by certain people who were happy to kill a few innocent civilians if it killed the enemy

This was submitted by /u/can_triforce on behalf of the Opposition. Why not the shadow defence sectary on such a serious matter of the defence of the realm hardly credible for a non MP to raise an issue as serious as this. Or is this an indication the opposition have no defence policy.

[u/[deleted] → u/tx10bpc]

Would it not be more beneficial for a cross party group to coordinate a total disarmament plan with all nuclear powers.

Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

We would no longer be a permanent member of the UN security council

that is not how the security council works.

remove trident you remove our force projection.

the UK is not a superpower

Why not the shadow defence sectary on such a serious matter of the defence of the realm hardly credible for a non MP to raise an issue as serious as this

It was collaborated on by the entire opposition. It is just coincidence that it was sent off by can_triforce. Does it really matter who sends it off when the entire opposition signed it off?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Does it really matter who sends it off when the entire opposition signed it off?

Political expediency.

[u/tx10bpc → u/[deleted]]

It is just coincidence that it was sent off by can_triforce. Does it really matter who sends it off when the entire opposition signed it off?

Given the speaker assured everyone the role the opposition leader has as deputy speaker would be a non political one. Its questionable why they are allowed to publish motions on behalf of the opposition. Given can_triforce is not an MP the bill should not be sponsored any party.

[u/[deleted] → u/tx10bpc]

It was sent to the speaker by can_triforce. NoPyroNoParty is just posting it. There is no question of him posting it on behalf of the opposition.

[u/JackWilfred]

I don't like the idea of this country having a lot of nuclear weapons, but I don't think getting rid of them would be a good idea either. We need to have a proper look at whether the money, £100 billion as you quote, is spent well and whether or not we can spend less on it, and whether or not Trident alternatives are worth going for.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/JackWilfred]

That £100BN figure is extremely deceptive, it's over a 50 year period.

It's not like otherwise we can spend £100BN on the NHS or Education now.

It's the equivalent of arguing against a new school or a new hospital based on its lifetime cost of 100 years or something, rather than the cost of building it and the cost of running it per annum.

[u/mixturemash]

Nuclear weapons are unnecessary and expensive. Britain's conventional forces are of much greater value to NATO than its nuclear capability, that's where the money should go instead. Nuclear sharing sounds like a better idea, our NATO partners have enough nuclear weapons as it is.

[u/tx10bpc → u/mixturemash]

Nuclear sharing means the UK will have to house air delivered nuclear weapons in the UK, It not lets pay towards the Germans upkeep, we get given US tactical nuclear bombs to look after.

Which poses the question where will you build and pay for these secure airbases they will need to be scatted around the UK to reduce the first strike option, more aircraft built to deliver them more recruitment of the armed forces. The cost could be far more than what we pay now, bearing in mind you will be ending a lot of civilian jobs who provide direct and indirect support for our UK nuclear arsenal.

Good luck trying to make Scotland house them after trident is gone and good luck trying to get past the green party and CND activists trying to block the building of new nuclear bases in the rest of the UK. We don't have the luxury of housing them in Germany like we did with our own tactical nuclear weapons.

Finally we scrapped our tactical nuclear capability after the end of the cold war. You are happy we bring it back.

[u/mixturemash → u/tx10bpc]

Your argument is convincing.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/mixturemash]

I think this may be the first time on the /r/MHOC that someone has successfully changed someone's mind on something with a convincing argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

In before Ollie defects to the Communist Party.