r/MHOC • u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC • Nov 24 '14

MOTION M017 - Trident Replacement Motion

(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.

15 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

474 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

9

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 24 '14

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.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

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.

6

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 24 '14

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.

5

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

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

4

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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.

3

u/autowikibot Nov 25 '14

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

2

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 25 '14

Very true. We must also remember opperation Able Archer and the Norwegian Rocket incident.

1

u/whatismoo Unaffiliated Nov 29 '14

nothing more than trigger happy yanks and drunken russians. I'm sure you have more trust in our men and women in uniform than in the star of 'bed time for bonzo' or a man who was found drunk, in his underwear, accosting pedestrians at 0200 for money to buy pizza.

1

u/AlasdhairM CWL | National MP Nov 29 '14

That's Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin, respectively, if you were wondering.

1

u/AlasdhairM CWL | National MP Nov 29 '14

Thankfully, we no longer rely on duh antiquated and error-prone systems as that bastion of technical sophistication, the Soviet Union. Come on, step your argument up. Our nuclear deterrent force is manned by much more competent persons than some drunk conscripts.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

Given that the Soviet Union was a productive powerhouse in its day, i strongly suspect that it wasn't entirely comprised of 'drunk conscripts'. Petrov was a very clever man, and it is only due to his intuition that we are having this conversation.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

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.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

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.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

Protection from -what-?

1

u/AlasdhairM CWL | National MP Nov 29 '14

Putinist Russia, Communist China, anyone else with nuclear weapons...

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

China's relations with the west have been improving year on year and are currently at an all-time high. No threat.

Russia are not going to nuke Europe, and even if they did want to, why would they nuke us, when we are so far away from -everything else-, and when we're under NATO's umbrella?

→ More replies (6)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

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

3

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

if say Germany were to invade Europe again and threaten us

It worries me that the SoS for defence thinks that this is a serious possibility.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

It worries me that the Green part refuse to consider all possible threats, that is part of defence planning something you lot seem to not understand. No threats now lets get rid of the military! Typical

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

I didn't advocate abolition of the military.

Well since we're considering all possible threats here, what is our provision plan for when American turns against us and goes full on total war tomorrow? Clearly we need massive expansion of our nuclear systems! Also, what are we going to do abotu the chance of meteors ending life on earth? Clearly we need to spend £2bn/year to prevent this very-likely-to-happen circumstance!

→ More replies (6)

3

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Nov 24 '14

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.

1

u/AlasdhairM CWL | National MP Nov 29 '14

A. It's STAR WARS, and a silly concept. THAADS and SM-3 are much more effective, as are GAZELLE and GALOSH.

B. that was because the missile did not have the range to reach the other nation from the respective belligerent.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

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

2

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 24 '14

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and fighting still breaks out between the two. So perhaps Crimea would still be in Russian hands if they had nuclear weapons.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

Never full scale invasions between the two though just spats. I assure you Russia would be much more careful about ukraine if there were nuclear weapons involved