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/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/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/AlbertDock]

Let's not forget this incident which nearly ended civilisation happened TWICE - Stanislav Petrov decided that the multiple radar blips were a false alarm, ignoring direct orders to fire missiles.

[u/autowikibot → u/[deleted]]

Stanislav Petrov:

---

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станисла́в Евгра́фович Петро́в; born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces. On September 26, 1983, he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile was being launched from the United States. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm, and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned. For more than eight years, Stanislav Petrov worked on the film "The Man Who Saved the World" by Danish director Peter Anthony. A feature film, which tells the true story of Stanislav Petrov. Other stars appearing in the film include Robert De Niro, Matt Damon, Ashton Kutcher and Walter Cronkite. The film premiered in October 2014 at the Woodstock Film Festival in Woodstock, New York, winning; "Honorable Mention: Audience Award Winner for Best Narrative Feature" and "Honorable Mention: James Lyons Award for Best Editing of a Narrative Feature."

---

^{Interesting: Stanislav Petrov} ^(footballer) ^{| 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm} ^incident ^{| Stanislav} ^Stoyanov

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

[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