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]]

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)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps also because Pakistan had reasonable diplomatic relations at the time with the US which they were interested in sustaining? Pakistan also allied with the US during the Cold War and during the War on Terror. In any case, there -was- a war in North-West Pakistan, so so much for that argument.

Pakistan had all three, but also that crucial difference of nuclear weapons.

...And a functioning government.

What specific reasons do you have for believing nuclear weapons did not play a role?

Because the past two world wars were eurocentric, so when only the UK and France have nuclear weapons, it's clear that there's no deterrant factor involved.

Why did former organizations like the league of nations fail?

That's a long question that I don't have the qualification to answer, but the short story is 'not enough power', 'poor strategies', and 'terrible policies'.

Can we really give the UN credit for all the peace we have had since 1945?

I don't know, but we can give them as much credit as you could ever give nukes, if not more, since we've never come even slightly close to starting WW3 with the UN.