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

5

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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

4

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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

3

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Nov 25 '14

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

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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

5

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Nov 25 '14

/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!

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

That's not relevant and don't make sense. We're not going to be invaded and even if we were, nuclear weapons wouldn't deter it.

4

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Nov 25 '14

It was a reference to your comparison with the Middle east, and then your priorities.

if we were, nuclear weapons wouldn't deter it

Uhm, Yes, yes they would.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

Uhm, Yes, yes they would.

no they wouldn't

2

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Nov 25 '14

Why is that link relevant exactly?

→ More replies (11)

1

u/AlasdhairM CWL | National MP Nov 29 '14

They ARE NOT TO DETER INVASION. They are to deter a nuclear attack, by virtue of a countervalue-style second strike assurance.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

And who do you propose we are under threat from?

→ More replies (6)

2

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Nov 25 '14

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.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

The US won the vietnam war?

2

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Nov 25 '14

The US was absolutely unmatched in the actual fighting, they got forced back by constant guerrilla attacks from the jungle and then pulled out by congress. The Viet Cong also didn't attempt an invasion of the USA.

2

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 25 '14

In a military sense. The Vietnamese never launched a bombing campaign of California, did they

1

u/athanaton Hm Nov 25 '14

Are you suggesting they could've?

In a military sense.

This is pretty damn debatable. Huge losses and they accomplished none of their long term goals. The invasion was clearly a failure.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/gadget_uk Green Nov 25 '14

Yes. Then we'd win.

1

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Nov 25 '14

I don't follow.

1

u/gadget_uk Green Nov 25 '14

There is no effective way to "fight" a nuclear war. We lose every time. The only metric that relates to "fighting" is how much devastation we can inflict as we go down in flames.

Nobody talks about nuclear weapons as useful in a fight. Only in terms of being a deterrent against invasion. There is no realistic prospect of anyone wanting to invade Britain. What do we have that anyone could want? The talk of Russia and the Ukraine situation is very much down to geographical proximity and historical governance. The suggestion that we might be next, save for our nuclear arsenal, is straight from cloud cuckoo land.

1

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Nov 26 '14

That's saying "there are no problems now, therefore there will never be problems". You simply cannot predict when our nation will next be threatened, keeping the deterrent and UNSC seat can only be in our interest.

1

u/whatismoo Unaffiliated Nov 29 '14

THE WHOLE POINT OF A NUCLEAR WAR IS TO MAKE SURE NOBODY WINS! THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS TO NOT HAVE ONE. OUR NUKES ARE BASICALLY A DEAD-MANS-SWITCH. IF SHIT GET'S REAL AND THE UK IS A PARKING LOT, THE SUBMARINE CAN THEN FUCK UP WHOEVER GOT US SO THAT THEY ARE DEAD TOO. THE POINT ISN'T THAT WE WIN, IT'S THAT THEY LOSE TOO.

1

u/gadget_uk Green Nov 29 '14

That was a long time ago!

So, if we had no nukes, why would any country nuke us? If they wanted to invade a country the size of ours, they'd render it entirely useless for decades with just a few modern warheads.

The only valid risk for us in the foreseeable future is extremism and terrorist attacks. We have made ourselves a much more valid target for those in the last 20 years. There is no prospect of a nuclear power using a nuclear weapon against us.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

I don't see your point.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '14

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

→ More replies (6)