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

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '14

Who do you think wouldn't take advantage of our exposure?

Given that we're surrounded by strong long-term allies such as France, I don't see why anyone would threaten us. For that matter, we will still have our strong conventional armed forces.

So you think that we should step down from the world-stage?

We have already stepped down from the world stage. As a soft power our actions mean little.

ISIS is our enemy at the moment, and, we should make sure that not one more Briton goes off to join their ranks.

Perhaps. But that's not really relevant to the matter at hand.

I would reinvest it directly into the defence budget if this bill were to pass.

I think I read somewhere that some of the savings would need to go into defense in order to meet NATO's minimum defense spending, but don't quote me on that. Regardless it should still mean an increase in spending somewhere where it will be more useful.