Labour to abstain vote on renewal of Trident Tuesday

1245pm

Would be reckless in todays world not to renew Trident.

tbh the nato membership should just all chip in a little to reduce costs.

no need for individual nato members to have their own programme unless they are intent on taking over another country

Ukraine has shown what happens if you give up your nuclear weapons.

Had the third-biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and gave them up in exchange for its territorial integrity being guaranteed by Russia, USA, UK and France.

wouldnt trust either side in the ukraine russia conflict.

can see why russia wanted to keep them close....

everyone assumes the ukrainians wanted to join the eu for normal reasons.
imo right wing drug barons pushed the president because they want to expand into the eu zone and make a serious amount of $$$

had a check and my MP has never voted on the Trident issue

Jan 20, 2015 -- 3:55PM, Burton-Brewers wrote:

had a check and my MP has never voted on the Trident issue

Me too

Just like the Labour party to remove our defence system when we need it more than ever in these uncertain times. They are useless.

It's not a vote to get rid of our WMD as some people seem to imply.

It's a vote not to renew the most expensive death delivery method out of several delivery options that the UK has.

Fair point, bongo. But one of the reasons it's the most expensive is because it's the most reliable. It's very hard to defend yourself against multiple warheads launched from moving locations underwater. 

A death-delivery method that's not guaranteed to deliver death isn't much more effective as a deterrent than none at all.

I think the reliability stats aren't available, or useful to be fair.

I'm convinced the RAF could go back to having two fighters airborne carrying nukes all the time. Also that the UK has a stash of biological weapons. There are other devastating weapons like the ones that distribute kerosene vapour or similar over a few hectares before following with an ignition.
Cost and deterrent value are important. But it's also important to have something you would actually be prepared to use. NATO are clearly prepared to use lots of smart weapons, and the budget should go here imv.

I was chilled by Putin's recent remark that the world should not mess with Russia because it has nuclear weapons. And then you look at the martyrdom mindset of those men unnervingly close to Pakistan's nuclear weapons...

I don't feel a couple of aircraft that could be shot down and which, in any case, would deliver "only" a couple of Hiroshimas are adequate deterrent in the face of people with those kinds of attitude. Only the promise of total destruction, not even just the threat, stops them rolling the dice and trying to win a nuclear exchange.

The stories of Putin and of Muslim militancy so far have been ones of continual failure and miscalculation. They achieve absolutely nothing, while the rhetoric gets more and more murderous and ridiculous. In a world where nuclear weapons exist, I believe civilized states have a moral duty to ensure they have an arsenal big enough and reliable enough to ensure delusional inadequates such as Putin and ISIL cannot possibly imagine a way of benefiting from the use of nuclear weapons.