Stupid people wanna get rid of trident!!??

[britishboy]

incase you dont know there are people in britian who want trident, our nuclear deterent gone!!! why on earth do you want your country to go weak??!! I think anyone who wants this is not British or hates our country:(

[Gwen]

Maybe, they're not stupid and they're trusting. Why be so angry? Britain is evolving and trying to go away from their military to evolve into other paths. Don't call be stupid for not wanting weapons of destruction. They're not weak, they're strong for standing above the rest.

[Harry Smith]

incase you dont know there are people in britian who want trident, our nuclear deterent gone!!! why on earth do you want your country to go weak??!! I think anyone who wants this is not British or hates our country:(

Your a twat, trident costs us so much money just to maintain it. We can't even afford it, why do we need it? we have a Nuclear Deterrent within NATO. Also have you heard of Mutual Destruction, if we ever did use Nucleur weapons it would be the end of the world. Don't try and use the patriotic card

[Jay1]

incase you dont know there are people in britian who want trident, our nuclear deterent gone!!! why on earth do you want your country to go weak??!! I think anyone who wants this is not British or hates our country:(

Probably not so much hating the country more living in a fantasy world thinking the world's a lovely place and we'll never be attacked.

Apart from the defence side (which hopefully we'll never need) there's also an element of prestige in being a country with a nuclear capability. Would be totally stupid to give that up

[Hunter_Steel]

Its better to have a defense system that can prevent a nuclear strike, and the ability to strike back, than to have a system where your country is completely open to attack. I believe it would be better for England to rather keep the Trident, than it would be to take it away.

[Human]

I'd rather keep the Trident system
I think it's useful for nuclear deterrence and stopping an attack before it begins, as everyone is scared of the British navy ;)

[randomnessqueen]

britain would be stronger for standing on its own, and not with a nuke at ready for constant fear of attack.

[Bethany]

I would prefer the UK not to have nuclear warheads such as Trident.

I disagree with the "it's a DETERRENT used to protect us" argument. It's sugar-coated. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction and kill millions of innocent people whenever the government decides to do so.

[TheBigUnit]

Your a twat, trident costs us so much money just to maintain it. We can't even afford it, why do we need it? we have a Nuclear Deterrent within NATO. Also have you heard of Mutual Destruction, if we ever did use Nucleur weapons it would be the end of the world. Don't try and use the patriotic card

Agree

[Harry Smith]

Probably not so much hating the country more living in a fantasy world thinking the world's a lovely place and we'll never be attacked.

Apart from the defence side (which hopefully we'll never need) there's also an element of prestige in being a country with a nuclear capability. Would be totally stupid to give that up

So we have it purely for prestige? that's a great ethos for our whole military thinking isn't it? I know the world isn't a perfect place but I ask you when would we need to defend? Have you heard of Mutual Destruction?


Its better to have a defense system that can prevent a nuclear strike, and the ability to strike back, than to have a system where your country is completely open to attack. I believe it would be better for England to rather keep the Trident, than it would be to take it away.

How does it prevent a strike? We're not completely open to attack without it. Many countries have withdrawn there own nuclear arsenal, it's just to expensive for us to maintain at the moment

britain would be stronger for standing on its own, and not with a nuke at ready for constant fear of attack.

Once again Mutual Destruction, we can still be attacked even with Trident. And if say we did get attacked what good would Trident be? We could either start WW3 with it or lamely respond by sending one rocket back at them.

'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but world War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einsten

'Man must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind' JFK

[Jay1]

So we have it purely for prestige? that's a great ethos for our whole military thinking isn't it? I know the world isn't a perfect place but I ask you when would we need to defend? Have you heard of Mutual Destruction?

Of course we have it for prestige. Do you seriously think we (or the Americans or the Russians) spent money on nuclear weapons because we intended to fire them?

[Hunter_Steel]

America and Russia developed nukes to nuke eachother.

Jus' sayin.

[Harry Smith]

Of course we have it for prestige. Do you seriously think we (or the Americans or the Russians) spent money on nuclear weapons because we intended to fire them?

Why else would we develop them? America developed there first one and they used it

[Jay1]

Why else would we develop them? America developed there first one and they used it

The Americans used a nuclear weapon in the context of an existing war against a foe they knew could not retaliate in kind. Whatever happened since then if a nuclear weapon had been used it would have been against a foe who could retaliate in kind which would have been stupid - as you rightly said earlier mutual destruction.

Are you suggesting the UK/USA/Russians did develop nuclear weapons with the intention of firing them - if so why didn't they?

[Harry Smith]

The Americans used a nuclear weapon in the context of an existing war against a foe they knew could not retaliate in kind. Whatever happened since then if a nuclear weapon had been used it would have been against a foe who could retaliate in kind which would have been stupid - as you rightly said earlier mutual destruction.

Are you suggesting the UK/USA/Russians did develop nuclear weapons with the intention of firing them - if so why didn't they?

The use of a Nuclear weapon doesn't mean that the other side will have one, not every country has nuclear weapons. But the Russians developed them before the concept of mutual destruction was even coined so yes they developed them with the intention to one day fire them if they came under risk. Your whole argument is wrong, is's like saying if I have a gun I never fire then I didn't buy it to shoot with.

[Jay1]

the Russians developed them before the concept of mutual destruction was even coined so yes they developed them with the intention to one day fire them if they came under risk.

Are you suggesting the Russians developed nuclear weapons because they thought they were under threat and would only have used them defensively?

[iAmSecret22398]

The world would be a better place if everyone got rid of all the nuclear weapons (or even all weapons...)

Unforunately, that's not going to happen.
Given the financial state that Britain's in and all the cuts that are happening in the wrong places at the moment (think NHS and education) I'd be happier to cut something off that really doesn't have much of a place at the minute.
The current government aren't particularly appealing anyway. Perhaps we should use Trident on them.

~iAmSecret22398

[Harry Smith]

Are you suggesting the Russians developed nuclear weapons because they thought they were under threat and would only have used them defensively?

I'm not suggesting anything Prodigy, have a look at your Visitor Messages

[Stronger]

What exactly is Trident?

[Jay1]

I'm not suggesting anything Prodigy, have a look at your Visitor Messages

ok you lost me. whats ur point?

[Harry Smith]

ok you lost me. whats ur point?

Don't worry, I was just wondering if you had a look at your visitor's messages. It's just you remind me of a former member on here who got banned, I still feel that we have no need for trident and I know your going to disagree with me so lets leave it there

[Jay1]

Don't worry, I was just wondering if you had a look at your visitor's messages. It's just you remind me of a former member on here who got banned, I still feel that we have no need for trident and I know your going to disagree with me so lets leave it there

whatever. hopefully rest of people here make sense sometimes

[Hunter_Steel]

Are you suggesting the Russians developed nuclear weapons because they thought they were under threat and would only have used them defensively?

USA and Russia developed Nukes so they can play duke nuke'em with eachother in the Cold War but eventually decided to save them for WWIII. If it were up to me I would put an anti nuclear defense net around my entire country. And retaliate with antimatter warheads.

Thats to say, antimatter could produce a blackhole and suck in the whole Earth. So... using a warhead would probably mean that the entire world would be destroyed and anyone who possesses such a weapon would control the world. But then again, the need for nukes and antimatter warheads will probably be naught if satellite weapons come into useage. So the whole "I NUKE U NAO!" argument doesn't work.

Because again, satellite weapons can be in orbit above a country and just pick it apart from orbit. The world of war is a very dangerous and strange and very unpredictable thing. You cannot decide for another country what is right or wrong, and what weapons they should fire if they were threatened.

I still doubt WWIII would be fought on Earth. It'll be fought in space about who gets to control Mars and certain regions of Space.

~Hunter

[Jay1]

USA and Russia developed Nukes so they can play duke nuke'em with eachother in the Cold War but eventually decided to save them for WWIII. If it were up to me I would put an anti nuclear defense net around my entire country

Isn't that pretty much what Reagan did with Star Wars? Whether it would have worked is another issue but it probably looked convincing enough to make the Russians stop and think.

End of the day nobody wanted ww3 - the point of nuclear weapons was to prevent war not cause it.

I still doubt WWIII would be fought on Earth. It'll be fought in space about who gets to control Mars and certain regions of Space.

I saw that movie too :)

Before fighting a war in space we'd have to find something in space that's worth fighting for, that might take a while.....

[britishboy]

im finding some of the responces almost funny lol when so many countrys like north Korea are going nuclear why abandon it? if a war breaks out we would be defenceless nukes takes years to develop!!

[TheBassoonist]

Nuclear weapons aren't meant for fighting wars. They're used as deterrents to prevent them, although that doesn't always work. The US and Russia didn't build up their arsenals to nuke each other, but to deter the other country from using its nukes. That's where MAD comes in. If Russia launched first, the US would retaliate, causing mutual destruction. The Cold War was the tension that resulted from said arsenals.

Now, the US remains the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, to end WW2. It was both a show of force and a way to keep the war from going any longer. With the probable exception of North Korea, no country since the end of World War 2 has built nuclear weapons with the express intent of using them. Just to keep other nuclear powers from using them.

And retaliate with antimatter warheads.

Thats to say, antimatter could produce a blackhole and suck in the whole Earth.

First of all, antimatter weapons are highly impractical and incredibly expensive. It costs $20 million just to create a few picograms of antimatter. Only 1 to 10 nanograms of antimatter is created a year. In order to create a viable antimatter bomb, about 250 grams, it'd take about 2.5 billion years at the current output. So antimatter weapons will never be a thing.

And second, an antimatter explosion doesn't produce a black hole. It releases energy when it annihilates matter. Black holes are produced when an intense gravitational field forms, like when a massive star collapses in on itself. An antimatter weapon would produce a lot of energy, but not a black hole.

[Hunter_Steel]

I beg to differ. Antimatter and matter cannot not touch. The theory is that Antimatter can distort space and time if it were to explode and release it's energy.

1-teaspoon of antimatter can produce the explosion equivalent to a 10 megaton nuclear warhead. Using a ton of antimatter can destroy the planet in one shot and can produce an explosion large enough to create a singularity. How exactly a singularity is formed is only a theory, everything about antimatter is a theory as well.

~Hunter

[britishboy]

they are there for deterence its not just to stop other super powers from nuking us its also a deterent to small poor countrys like Argentina they really want the Falkland islands and if we wasnt a nuclear power they wilp be more encouraged to try again to take them.

[Harry Smith]

they are there for deterence its not just to stop other super powers from nuking us its also a deterent to small poor countrys like Argentina they really want the Falkland islands and if we wasnt a nuclear power they wilp be more encouraged to try again to take them.

that's completely untrue, we had nuclear weapons back in 82' and they still invaded the falklands.

[britishboy]

that's completely untrue, we had nuclear weapons back in 82' and they still invaded the falklands.

firstly I never said it stops it I said it deters and it was an example READ and our nukes are bigger and better now and also are you honestly telling me that you would be threatened by a country that could flattern you with no effot?! and they prevent wars for that reason we can also threaten countrys like Argentina by saying 'stop or we flatten you'

[Harry Smith]

firstly I never said it stops it I said it deters and it was an example READ and our nukes are bigger and better now and also are you honestly telling me that you would be threatened by a country that could flattern you with no effot?! and they prevent wars for that reason we can also threaten countrys like Argentina by saying 'stop or we flatten you'

I think the Foreign Office should hire you mate. You can't simply threaten to flatten countries, that's not only immoral but it's also what Hitler wanted to do to most of Europe surrounding germany. If we did launch a nuclear strike against Argentina for any reason then there would be riots on the street, our government and country would collaspe

[britishboy]

What exactly is Trident?

lol its currently 4 subs (theyre building more) and theyre britians nuclear deterent edvanced and powerful can strike anywear in the world at anytime thats why there where a bouts are secret.

[Ajmichael]

Trident costs us so much money just to maintain it. We can't even afford it, why do we need it? we have a Nuclear Deterrent within NATO.

Actually, none of the member states of NATO commit their nuclear capability, including the UK. Trident is only for the nuclear defence of the United Kingdom. The deterrent capability has to be maintained, especially seeing as we now live in a changing world. With states like North Korea and Iran trying to develop nuclear programs, do you honestly think that they will commit to NATOs Non-Nuclear proliferation treaty? North Korea has already withdrawn from it. But no state is going to fire of a nuclear missile if there is 16000 tonnes of SSBN sitting off the coast. The SDSR in 2011 estimated that the UK will need an effective nuclear deterrent until the 2050s at least, hence the Successor Program which will reduce the operating costs but will not compromise UK security and defence. The UKs Trident program has already been cut through reducing the number of warheads carried on operational submarines and reducing the overall number of warheads to no more than 120. The point of the UKs deterrent is that it will only be used if another state makes a nuclear strike first, threats of nuclear strike will not promote a strike from the UK.

[Harry Smith]

Actually, none of the member states of NATO commit their nuclear capability, including the UK. Trident is only for the nuclear defence of the United Kingdom. The deterrent capability has to be maintained, especially seeing as we now live in a changing world. With states like North Korea and Iran trying to develop nuclear programs, do you honestly think that they will commit to NATOs Non-Nuclear proliferation treaty? North Korea has already withdrawn from it. But no state is going to fire of a nuclear missile if there is 16000 tonnes of SSBN sitting off the coast. The SDSR in 2011 estimated that the UK will need an effective nuclear deterrent until the 2050s at least, hence the Successor Program which will reduce the operating costs but will not compromise UK security and defence. The UKs Trident program has already been cut through reducing the number of warheads carried on operational submarines and reducing the overall number of warheads to no more than 120.

Why do we have the moral right to threaten another country with a 16,000 tonne SSBN, why do we have the moral right to kill millions of innocent civilians. North Korea is just a hawks argument, they are no threat to Britain at all. So what if Iran and North Korea develop them, they have every right to develop them, just as we developed them in the 50's as did the french and the Chinese.

[Ajmichael]

Why does anyone have the moral right to kill anyone else? The answer is, they don't. That is why it is a deterrent to be used only as a last resort. If you were in a situation like in 1982, where you were faced with an Argentine invasion of British soil and you had to make the decision, would you fight, or would you question the morality of killing Argentines after they've invaded British territory and killed civilians?

[Harry Smith]

Why does anyone have the moral right to kill anyone else? The answer is, they don't. That is why it is a deterrent to be used only as a last resort. If you were in a situation like in 1982, where you were faced with an Argentine invasion of British soil and you had to make the decision, would you fight, or would you question the morality of killing Argentines after they've invaded British territory and killed civilians?

Are you referring to an invasion of the mainland or of the Falklands?

[Ajmichael]

The Falklands, or the mainland, it's up to you.

[Stronger]

lol its currently 4 subs (theyre building more) and theyre britians nuclear deterent edvanced and powerful can strike anywear in the world at anytime thats why there where a bouts are secret.

Oh okay, thank you

[Harry Smith]

The Falklands, or the mainland, it's up to you.

Okay so if you take the Falklands, Maggie and her cabinet had the option of a Nuclear Strike on say the Capital of Argentina, so say if they decided to send the Vulcan over there then there are going to be a lot of problems. Probably about 200,000 deaths alone in Argentina within the first day, this will be children and elderly people remember. This would widespread protest across Britain and the world. The whole of southern America would move towards the Soviet Union, America would probably withdraw support to the pound due to us using a nuclear weapon without a Deceleration of war and we would face very hard economic sanctions from the UN. That is what would of happened if we used them. Can you honestly say you would be happy to have 200,000 deaths on your hand for a southern American island. I'm very much in favour of the Falklands island they have the union jack but I would not send 200,000 million to the grave just for national pride.

[Ajmichael]

Neither would I, as I've already said a couple of times, nuclear weapons would only be used if there was a nuclear strike against Britain first, or in the case of ongoing conflict, if Weapons of Mass Destruction were used against British forces on operations in the area. This is in accordance with NATOs No First Use policy shared by HM Government.

[britishboy]

I think the Foreign Office should hire you mate. You can't simply threaten to flatten countries, that's not only immoral but it's also what Hitler wanted to do to most of Europe surrounding germany. If we did launch a nuclear strike against Argentina for any reason then there would be riots on the street, our government and country would collaspe


ow grow up u know what I mean its not imoral it stops wars and saves lives if u can threaten someone to not attack u or attack someone eles theres millions leas deaths.

this is not a thread arguing about nukes its arguing about idiots trying to get rid of them when we still spend 50 mill a day on the eu a god knows how much more on the eu immigrants

[Harry Smith]

ow grow up u know what I mean its not imoral it stops wars and saves lives if u can threaten someone to not attack u or attack someone eles theres millions leas deaths.

this is not a thread arguing about nukes its arguing about idiots trying to get rid of them when we still spend 50 mill a day on the eu a god knows how much more on the eu immigrants

haha this speaks for itself mate