The LibDem intention not to replace Trident

[sizsells]

May I ask a question " WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING TRIDENT " other than the fact that WE have spent/wasted billions on it I cannot see the point is it just so we can say if you bomb us we will bomb you and is it BIGGER than others may have mind you I do know in this country we are good at wasting money well the powers that be are

[threegee]

...(as the party believes the structural deficit is £70bn). You are right that there are no specific cuts identified for that yet although the party have said they will look at public sector pensions and the cost of replacing Trident.

Here you are talking about £70 Billion per year? Whereas when the LDs talk about the Trident replacement cost they are talking about a figure that would be split over ten years. Seems to me that there's a lot of this bamboozle with figures going on.

May I ask a question " WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING TRIDENT " other than the fact that WE have spent/wasted billions on it I cannot see the point is it just so we can say if you bomb us we will bomb you and is it BIGGER than others may have mind you I do know in this country we are good at wasting money well the powers that be are

For the same reason we have an army, and a navy and an air force. For the same reason we fit locks on our doors knowing that they are really not a huge amount of use. For the same reason that we "throw away" money on insurance policies. For the same reason we have the Queen.

Because they are a deterrent; because they've been proven to come in useful - often for the most unexpected reasons at the most unexpected times; because we'd be talking more risks than we need to take without them; because they contribute to the stability of ourselves, our Nation and our Planet; because we've always had them, and no one person or political party is wise enough to tell us exactly what we'd be letting ourselves in for without them.

It's not that we can't find other things to do with the money, and it's not that we don't all wish they didn't exist or that all nations didn't say lets universally ban them - we'd be right at the front of the queue there!

There's also a military case that says they allow us to have far less conventional forces than if we didn't have them! i.e. they are cost effective.

AND because in the 1930's we made the same mistake of unilaterally running down our military by listening to the same sort of arguments. The bill for that "saving" is still visible in our public places. The Labour Party learned that lesson more thoroughly than most, because by and large it was their failed experiment (though it suited the general mood at the time)!

[mercuryg]

May I ask a question " WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING TRIDENT " other than the fact that WE have spent/wasted billions on it I cannot see the point is it just so we can say if you bomb us we will bomb you and is it BIGGER than others may have mind you I do know in this country we are good at wasting money well the powers that be are

With respect, this is a scary post. We need a deterrent that is enough of a threat to keep people worried. There are some very unstable regimes in the world right now that should not be underestimated.

[Monsta®]

May I ask a question " WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING TRIDENT " other than the fact that WE have spent/wasted billions on it I cannot see the point is it just so we can say if you bomb us we will bomb you and is it BIGGER than others may have mind you I do know in this country we are good at wasting money well the powers that be are

are you for real! tell you what we'll throw it away and hope are ground troops are scary enough to keep iran/ north korea away! ( i can see them rolling around on the floor laughing!)

[Malcolm Robinson]

May I ask a question " WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING TRIDENT " other than the fact that WE have spent/wasted billions on it I cannot see the point is it just so we can say if you bomb us we will bomb you and is it BIGGER than others may have mind you I do know in this country we are good at wasting money well the powers that be are

Sizsells,

One of the prime responsibilities of any national government is the protection of its peoples and realms. How that is achieved, in a nuclear age, has historically been to say we have the means to obliterate you if you launch against us and so cancel the threat. That has served us well enough during the 'Cold War' period but the landscape has changed of late and we have to respond to current possible threats not historical ones. We also have to realise our country is now relegated to being just a bit part player in the global game. For these reasons I think we could save the cost of modernising our nuclear arsenal.

It has probably more to do with where we sit when the UN Security Council meets, as we try to cling to past glories!

GGG makes a historically reactive case and while that has probably been the correct course of action in the past I think we could possibly get the same level of 'insurance cover' through negotiated treaties these days. If we take the protection afforded by these weapons to counter the threat by another power with the same weapons then who are we talking about? USA, Russia, China and France. The countries developing this type of capability might be more worthy of consideration, India, Pakistan and North Korea, but we should let the big boys handle them. One box of frogs in the mix, Israel, but they have never admitted possessing these weapons. South Africa had them then dismantled them before signing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

[mobius]

Just imagine how unbearable the French would be if they were the only European country with an independent nuclear deterrent.

We have to keep Trident to keep the French in their place!

[Malcolm Robinson]

Just imagine how unbearable the French would be if they were the only European country with an independent nuclear deterrent.

We have to keep Trident to keep the French in their place!

:lol:

[threegee]

Sizsells,

One of the prime responsibilities of any national government is the protection of its peoples and realms. How that is achieved, in a nuclear age, has historically been to say we have the means to obliterate you if you launch against us and so cancel the threat. That has served us well enough during the 'Cold War' period but the landscape has changed of late and we have to respond to current possible threats not historical ones.

The problems here are: that governments are notoriously bad at predicting "current possible threats"; nor is it current threats we should consider - this is a no-going-back decision that should absolutely not be taken simply in the light of current events.

We also have to realise our country is now relegated to being just a bit part player in the global game. For these reasons I think we could save the cost of modernising our nuclear arsenal.

It has probably more to do with where we sit when the UN Security Council meets, as we try to cling to past glories!

This was the case even in WWII, but it didn't stop us having a major influence on the outcome. Of course if we hadn't turned our backs on our kith and kin, for this outdated (geographically based) EU nonsense, and morphed the Commonwealth into a Worldwide English Speaking Union things would be very different in the world today. Our politicians even managed to mess up the first successful attempt at a true European and non-political free market (EFTA) by turning our back on that too! These are not people who have any right to take major constitutional and security decisions without consulting the electorate DIRECTLY on the issue. Too easy to sneak this one past the electorate - "well, it was in our manifesto!".

GGG makes a historically reactive case and while that has probably been the correct course of action in the past I think we could possibly get the same level of 'insurance cover' through negotiated treaties these days. If we take the protection afforded by these weapons to counter the threat by another power with the same weapons then who are we talking about? USA, Russia, China and France. The countries developing this type of capability might be more worthy of consideration, India, Pakistan and North Korea, but we should let the big boys handle them. One box of frogs in the mix, Israel, but they have never admitted possessing these weapons. South Africa had them then dismantled them before signing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Name the country which poses a threat is always the argument of the unilateralist. It's always possible to propose a plausible workaround when you do. But the World doesn't work with such a simplistic labelling system. Current sovereign states fragment, regimes change, and all sorts of unpredictable groups and ideologies surface, often seemingly from out of nowhere. Relationships with our allies wax and wane too. Nor is it simply threat and counter-threat that has to be considered.

A party which tells us that it was a good move to throw £45Bn of taxpayer's money at Northern Rock is now telling us it can pay for this or that promise if it redirects less than a quarter of that sum away from the basic duty of any government: defence of the realm!

This is the same party that is telling us that is prepared to sacrifice £17Bn a year in tax relief in order to provide a £1.5Bn benefit to the lower paid! Why not GIVE the £1.5Bn to the lower paid directly by one excuse or another; pay the £10Bn for our basic defence (it has already been budgeted for by Labour anyway!), and apply the £5.5Bn balance to paying some of Gordon's credit card debt? We'd all be able to sleep sounder, and you never know: that £10Bn p.a. could very easily - rather like Gordon's "helicopters saving" - turn out to be yet another politician's false economy!

There's also the argument that says that if we can't even afford to defend our own territory, then what the $%*$ are we doing spending billions in someone else's! If things are really so tight that we can't maintain current home defences, we should stop the military adventures first! Some historical precedents there too?

[Stephen]

This is the same party that is telling us that is prepared to sacrifice £17Bn a year in tax relief in order to provide a £1.5Bn benefit to the lower paid!

Reducing the tax paid by higher rate taxpayers = tax relief

Reducing the tax paid by the lower paid = benefit

So tell me, how high does your income have to be before a tax reduction is defined as tax relief instead of a benefit?

[Malcolm Robinson]

I can see plenty of places where threats can and do come from its just I don't see any of the nuclear capability countries as being included which would seem to make the whole argument, if you let one off so will we, redundant. I wonder how soundly people who live in non nuclear armed counties sleep at night, probably better for not being a primary target!

As for stopping the military adventures, yes we should. I also think that in present circumstances we should stop this increase in foreign aid promised and put that £4B into paying some debt off.

[threegee]

Semantics aside it's a £17Bn cost (p.a.) in order to get £1.5Bn (p.a.) to people with under £10K salary. And... from a party that is telling us it can save money on unnecessary expenditure! And... from a party who believes we all want to pay higher taxes for more state "benefits"!

Computer (+this voter) says no!

[sizsells]

oh I see LOL ........Listen with ALL due respect to ALL who answered.. I CAN see the argument for having Trident however in the event we get BOMBED all we are going to do is get even with the country that has bombed us erm we will all be gonners.. So we are going to die with a we got you back smile on our face erm bit sad aint it because it would be the last thing on my mind and probably yours also.

And don,t forget we have the good old USA on our side its like having a BIG brother lol...........And our nuclear threat is doing us a power of good in Afganistan/Iraq and probably Iran soon........ I mean they are quacking in the sandels

[sizsells]

I can see plenty of places where threats can and do come from its just I don't see any of the nuclear capability countries as being included which would seem to make the whole argument, if you let one off so will we, redundant. I wonder how soundly people who live in non nuclear armed counties sleep at night, probably better for not being a primary target!

As for stopping the military adventures, yes we should. I also think that in present circumstances we should stop this increase in foreign aid promised and put that £4B into paying some debt off.

Correct Charity begins at home god knows we need it

[mercuryg]

oh I see LOL ........Listen with ALL due respect to ALL who answered.. I CAN see the argument for having Trident however in the event we get BOMBED all we are going to do is get even with the country that has bombed us erm we will all be gonners.. So we are going to die with a we got you back smile on our face erm bit sad aint it because it would be the last thing on my mind and probably yours also.

You've answered your own original question there; we don't want to get bombed, and neither does anyone else, hence having an effective deterrent such as Trident means we are much less likely to. That's why we have it, and must continue to do so.

[Monsta®]

You've answered your own original question there; we don't want to get bombed, and neither does anyone else, hence having an effective deterrent such as Trident means we are much less likely to. That's why we have it, and must continue to do so.

couldn't agree more!

[sizsells]

You've answered your own original question there; we don't want to get bombed, and neither does anyone else, hence having an effective deterrent such as Trident means we are much less likely to. That's why we have it, and must continue to do so.

Oh well thats ok then I will sleep well in my bed knowing that NO ONE will EVER dare to bomb us .........

I still think its a waste of money .... money that could be spent elswhere on something more worthwhile other than you hit me and i,ll hit you back.

[Andy Millne]

Maybe we could install loudspeakers playing classical music in all known hostile states as a pre-emptive measure... well it worked for the Metro.

[mercuryg]

Oh well thats ok then I will sleep well in my bed knowing that NO ONE will EVER dare to bomb us .........

As it clearly concerns you - being bombed, that is - surely you can see that having the ability to retaliate means you can, in fact, sleep easier?

I still think its a waste of money .... money that could be spent elswhere on something more worthwhile other than you hit me and i,ll hit you back.

I'm not sure that you're being consistent here; on the one hand you say you can see the arguments for having Trident, on the other you are convinced it's a waste of money. Granted, it's very pricey, as is anything designed to protect an entire nation, but surely the portion of our taxes that goes to the defence budget is something we should be happy to contribute to? I agree, it's of little use in Iraq and Afganistan but that's a moot point as, like you I suspect, I don't believe we should be there.

The point is this: there are mad tyrants in the world who are gaining in power - look to Korea, for example, for the first signs of instability - and who, like many have gone before, may well have delusions of world domination. It's always been like this - we are not, in any way, one big, happy family of nations all existing in the perfect harmony of an aged Blue Mink hit. Say one of those tyrants decides he fancies unleashing his firepower on a country that would show his might; if he knows they would simply wipe him out in a retaliatory attack, he's much, much less likely to do so. He'll choose someone who can't retaliate.

Get rid of Trident, and the resultant vulnerability you leave the county open to is worth far more to thers than the price we pay for a deterrent.

[Malcolm Robinson]

It seems a strange state of affairs when on the one hand we sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and on the other renew our own capability? We seem to be putting as much money into killing people as we do into saving lives. Personally I would rather the latter took precedence.

[sizsells]

As it clearly concerns you - being bombed, that is - surely you can see that having the ability to retaliate means you can, in fact, sleep easier?

I'm not sure that you're being consistent here; on the one hand you say you can see the arguments for having Trident, on the other you are convinced it's a waste of money. Granted, it's very pricey, as is anything designed to protect an entire nation, but surely the portion of our taxes that goes to the defence budget is something we should be happy to contribute to? I agree, it's of little use in Iraq and Afganistan but that's a moot point as, like you I suspect, I don't believe we should be there.

The point is this: there are mad tyrants in the world who are gaining in power - look to Korea, for example, for the first signs of instability - and who, like many have gone before, may well have delusions of world domination. It's always been like this - we are not, in any way, one big, happy family of nations all existing in the perfect harmony of an aged Blue Mink hit. Say one of those tyrants decides he fancies unleashing his firepower on a country that would show his might; if he knows they would simply wipe him out in a retaliatory attack, he's much, much less likely to do so. He'll choose someone who can't retaliate.

Get rid of Trident, and the resultant vulnerability you leave the county open to is worth far more to thers than the price we pay for a deterrent.

I said I could see the point what I DIDNT say was I AGREED with it.

and I don,t look at the state of the world through rose coloured glasses I,m not that naieve or in fact that blinkered either.... There are tyrants in the world with delusions of greatness "world domination" with all due respect is taking it a "bit to far" other than the USA lol and like I said they are on our side and I dont think for one second they will stand and do nothing in the event of a show of threat from whoever North Korea if you want. We are with them in the no win battle for OIL in the middle east where I believe a certain tyrant who had apparent WMD,s and was of GREAT threat to world safety once lived. And the history books in the long distant future may just tell the truth one day.

I do think however and I REPEAT it is a waste of money......... money that could be used to make this country a better place to live health, education, law and order the ecconomy JOBS etc etc who knows even Bedlington might get a slice of the action

[mercuryg]

I said I could see the point what I DIDNT say was I AGREED with it.

Fair comment.

and I don,t look at the state of the world through rose coloured glasses I,m not that naieve or in fact that blinkered either.... There are tyrants in the world with delusions of greatness "world domination" with all due respect is taking it a "bit to far" other than the USA lol and like I said they are on our side and I dont think for one second they will stand and do nothing in the event of a show of threat from whoever North Korea if you want. We are with them in the no win battle for OIL in the middle east where I believe a certain tyrant who had apparent WMD,s and was of GREAT threat to world safety once lived. And the history books in the long distant future may just tell the truth one day.

Ok, let me get this straight; if I'm reading this right, you think that we can do without Trident and nuclear deterrents because the USA will come to our rescue? That is what you're saying? That because we are with them in the Oil War they will leap to our defence?

The scenario is this: we do away with Trident, North Korea or a.n. other goes apeshit and decides to bomb us as a show of strength, and the USA is our saviour?

I'm sorry but if that's what you believe then you clearly ARE looking at the world through rose tinted glasses! The USA wouldn't lift a finger unless it, too, is attacked.

I do think however and I REPEAT it is a waste of money......... money that could be used to make this country a better place to live health, education, law and order the ecconomy JOBS etc etc who knows even Bedlington might get a slice of the action

Ok, it's very expensive, granted, but then keeping your country safe and protected is never going to be cheap.

I understand your reasoning that the money could be - in your eyes - better spent elsewhere, but that misses the point that if xyz party does scrap Trident they aren't going to spend that money - it will be an example of 'spending cuts' hailed to show how economical the new leaders are being.

I can only say I disagree with you in that it's great to have a country that we wish to strive to improve, but I'm happy to pay my bit to make it one that future generations can strive to improve with a reduced threat of being blasted from the face of the earth by some mad idiot.

[sizsells]

Fair comment.

Ok, let me get this straight; if I'm reading this right, you think that we can do without Trident and nuclear deterrents because the USA will come to our rescue? That is what you're saying? That because we are with them in the Oil War they will leap to our defence?

The scenario is this: we do away with Trident, North Korea or a.n. other goes apeshit and decides to bomb us as a show of strength, and the USA is our saviour?

I'm sorry but if that's what you believe then you clearly ARE looking at the world through rose tinted glasses! The USA wouldn't lift a finger unless it, too, is attacked.

Ok, it's very expensive, granted, but then keeping your country safe and protected is never going to be cheap.

I understand your reasoning that the money could be - in your eyes - better spent elsewhere, but that misses the point that if xyz party does scrap Trident they aren't going to spend that money - it will be an example of 'spending cuts' hailed to show how economical the new leaders are being.

I can only say I disagree with you in that it's great to have a country that we wish to strive to improve, but I'm happy to pay my bit to make it one that future generations can strive to improve with a reduced threat of being blasted from the face of the earth by some mad idiot.

We will have to agree on one thing and that is to dissagree.

Bye the way the Nuclear club consist of just 5 countries

USA,SOVIET UNION,FRANCE,CHINA,UK

There are another ONLY 3 other countries that have not signed up the non proliferation treaty they are INDIA,PAKISTAN,NORTH KOREA.....and ISRAEL will not confirm or deny that it has a nuclear capability.........

Now then I can see of only one country that just might have as you put it want to blast us "off the face of the earth"

The others well I dont consider them a threat to world peace...ie indiscrimanatly bomb peacefull nations..

So if your interpritation is correct the whole world with the exception of those named above are doomed I think not..........

No I STAND by what I say its a complete waste of money and your comments fully endorse my feelings but as I said earlier we will have to agree to dissagree...

We fortunatly live in a society where we can freely discuss these differences of opinion openly and its no thanks to having nuclear weapons.

[mercuryg]

We will have to agree on one thing and that is to dissagree.

Fair enough, with one concession........

Bye the way the Nuclear club consist of just 5 countries

USA,SOVIET UNION,FRANCE,CHINA,UK

This is a misunderstanding, and one widely proliferated by typically innacurate wikipedia article that i suspect you've accessed. Those five countries are the ones who openly ADMIT to having built their own nuclear weaponry, yet there are numeous others that are well known to have not only the capability to do so, but in some cases are believed to have done so. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - as you mention - are known factors, and Iran, Syria, Japan, a number of the middle east countries and a handful of others are widely believed to have nuclear capability. Furthermore, many countries are home to nuclear weaponry in good order - the former Russian states (the Soviet Union no longer exists) being notable as not only did many f the weapons stay in their bases upon the break up of the Union but their is a well known quite alarming discrepancy between the number of warheads that were around at that time and those that exist now (in other words, quite a large number have 'gone missing').

One other thing I will say is that your last line about free speech is interesting, and while it may well be in no way down to Nuclear Weapons it is certainly down to weapons per se; that nuclear weaponry was in its infancy at the time of the last world war is the reason for that, otherwise we would undoubtedly have been looking at the H-bomb as our saviour from a Nazi regime.

[Monsta®]

full list of countries that have or could create a nuclear weapon!

Albania

Algeria

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Bulgaria

Canada

PR China

France

Germany

India

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Japan

Netherlands

North Korea

Pakistan

Poland

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

Sweden

Syria

Taiwan (ROC)

United Kingdom

United States

[mercuryg]

Must say, not often I find myself on the same side of the debate as Monsta! (no disrespect intended, of course!!)