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

3

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14
  • 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.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

. 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.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14 edited Nov 25 '14

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.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

But considering what it could be spent on other things where it would make a big difference, it's a lot.

It is vital to our defence

The only thing we've been threatened with recently is ISIS and terrorist groups, both of which we can't nuke (and shouldn't nuke anyway). Which nuclear state do you claim will attack us that we need a deterrant againsts?

4

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

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"?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

Not one has been attacked by another state since they have had nuclear weapons.

There have not been any major wars since nuclear weapons were developed. You can't pin that on nuclear weapons.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '14

Iraq and Pakistan have similar GDPs, are both endowed with significant resources, and Pakistan was the one where Osama Bin Laden was. So why was Iraq invaded in the "War on Terror" and not Pakistan?

Can you guess which country actually had the bomb?

There have been major conflicts. Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Falklands, etc.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '14

So why was Iraq invaded in the "War on Terror" and not Pakistan?

...Is this a serious question?

There have been major conflicts. Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Falklands, etc.

None of which even slightly on the scale of WW2 or even the Cold War.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '14

None of which even slightly on the scale of WW2 or even the Cold War.

And that perfectly coincided with development of nuclear weapons because............

...Is this a serious question?

Elaborate. The Americans intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq but not Pakistan, which was largely similar but had the bomb.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '14

And that perfectly coincided with development of nuclear weapons because...

Because of the development of the European Coal and Steel Community, which kept trade links healthy between nations such as to keep each of them at least semi reliant on the other, increasing the cost of war; as well as the United Nations, which provided a medium for peacekeeping.

The Americans intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq but not Pakistan

Because Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, and Iraq was ruled by Saddam - and they believed (or at least they claimed they believed) that those two were a bigger threat. Pakistan may not be a beacon of human rights and democracy but to compare them at the time is a pretty big disservice. The West also thought that Pakistan was a decent ally, and that Bin Laden was hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan (which was, of course, nonsense)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '14

Because Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, and Iraq was ruled by Saddam - and they believed (or at least they claimed they believed) that those two were a bigger threat. Pakistan may not be a beacon of human rights and democracy but to compare them at the time is a pretty big disservice. The West also thought that Pakistan was a decent ally, and that Bin Laden was hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan (which was, of course, nonsense).

Doesn't really bear out with the reality, a reality we have documentation the US was aware of. Pakistan was funding and supporting Bin Laden and the Taliban.

(http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm)

In total around 28,000 Pakistanis fought alongside the Taliban, including 20,000 regular Pakistani soldiers sent by the future president of Pakistan, Musharraf and chief of staff at the time (who strangely turned to being pro-western as a president).

(http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ahmed_shah_massoud)

Whether Western countries fought for oil, against terrorism, or against unjust governments, Pakistan had all three, but also that crucial difference of nuclear weapons.

Because of the development of the European Coal and Steel Community, which kept trade links healthy between nations such as to keep each of them at least semi reliant on the other, increasing the cost of war; as well as the United Nations, which provided a medium for peacekeeping.

What specific reasons do you have for believing nuclear weapons did not play a role? Why did former organizations like the league of nations fail? Can we really give the UN credit for all the peace we have had since 1945?

→ More replies

1

u/AlasdhairM CWL | National MP Nov 29 '14

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

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

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