General / Off-Topic Trident vote in the UK

Are you for or against Trident ?

  • FOR RENEWAL

    Votes: 25 50.0%
  • AGAINST RENEWAL

    Votes: 25 50.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Okay so we all know it will pass, but if you were an MP, which way would you vote ? Anyone who has seen my previous posts on polarizing topics will know where i stand, i believe in defence, and that means i believe in the ultimate detterent, the question is....am i in the same kind of minority in this as i was regarding the Tony Blair and Iraq war thread (which had no poll) ? Or am i in a majority (as i sometimes am).
 
Last edited:
Okay so we all know it will pass, but if you were an MP, which way would you vote ? Anyone who has seen my previous posts on polarizing topics will know where i stand, i believe in defence, and that means i believe in the ultimate detterent, the question is....am i in the same kind of minority in this as i was regarding the Tony Blair and Iraq war thread (which had no poll) ? Or am i in a majority (as i sometimes am).

I think the UK still needs this deterrent.

I'm also pretty sure this forum is heavily weighted towards those whose politics dictate they think with their heart and not with their head - as seen in the Brexit thread(s) - so I suspect this poll will go down a predictable route. ;)
 

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
This should help on the Trident discussion.

[video=youtube;ESIJ_C9mUBI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESIJ_C9mUBI[/video]
 
Think of planet earth as a badly ventilated locked room, nations as people crammed inside it, and being a nuclear power as holding a hand grenade.

There is no win scenario involving the grenades, there's just varying degree's of being dead or horribly wounded followed by slow suffocation.
 
My view is this. The world will never (despite treaties) get rid of it's nukes, and the treaty on our part regarding decommissioning could resume when all other nuke armed countries are at our numbers (as i said, never). Also, the fact that that the Soviets never invaded western Europe was no coincidence, the fact that Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Jordan and Pakistan have not completed their goal of destroying Israel is no coincidence, the fact that despite tensions there has not been full war between Pakistan and India (Kashmir clashes only) is no coincidence. And do you think that the Russians would have annexed crimea and violated Ukraine if the Ukraine had kept their soviet stockpiles ? I think not. In fact i'd say Mutually assured destruction is exactly what has thus far stopped a third world war. Regarding nukes, the only thing that we need to do is stop religious crazies like Iran getting them (as they have vowed to wipe another nation off the map), everyone else (including Pakistan it seems) can be trusted not to use them. (i leave the unique threat/non threat of North Korea aside for now).
 
Last edited:
My wish? A public referendum on Trident. The area that votes to most to keep it, has to have it where they live.
You say that as if it's dangerous, it's safer than a nuclear power plant, and if there is a nuclear war, not having it there (Wherever) will not make the slightest bit of difference.
 
Last edited:
Then his suggestion should make no difference to you and you should vote for it to be kept in your backyard!

Rhetorical straw man. The potential explosion from one Trident missile is such that it basically is in an awful lot of people's back yards.

We need this deterrent.

It's a Big Stick.

Other countries which are hostile to the Western way of life either have their own Big Sticks or are developing them. You don't want to be in a position where they can wield a Big Stick and you don't have one as a deterrent. That's even more insane than the current situation.

I am in full agreement that nuclear weapons are a Bad Thing. Unfortunately, harsh reality trumps any heart's desire for all nukes to be dismantled. Harsh reality dictates that in order to dissuade hostile countries using nukes against the UK, the UK needs its own deterrent. At the moment, any thought to dismantle such a deterrent is just wishful thinking.
 
I think nukes are soo amazingly good at deterring attacks.. I mean we've had nukes for years and no ones attacked us! wow it must work. All those poor counties without nukes get attacked all the time.
 

verminstar

Banned
I think nukes are soo amazingly good at deterring attacks.. I mean we've had nukes for years and no ones attacked us! wow it must work. All those poor counties without nukes get attacked all the time.

Exactly why we need nukes because if we didn't have any either then we would get attacked all the time too, so yer right, it works a treat.

Very much in favor of this...we need a great big stick like this to show we would not be the easy target that some seem to think we are ^^

(maybe start rebuilding our budget racked armed forces too but that can come later)
 
Last edited:

verminstar

Banned
You know subs have bases, right?

You do know that not all the base locations are public knowledge, right? Nobody gets the vote on where those bases are situated...if one is to be setup in yer own backyard as it were, then there really is nothing anyone can do about it past chaining themselves to the gates in some token demo that won't make any difference to the outcome whatsoever ^^
 
You do know that not all the base locations are public knowledge, right? Nobody gets the vote on where those bases are situated...if one is to be setup in yer own backyard as it were, then there really is nothing anyone can do about it past chaining themselves to the gates in some token demo that won't make any difference to the outcome whatsoever ^^

I'm reasonably sure that the only Trident base in the UK is Faslane. Vanguard subs are pretty big, there's not going to be too many facilities which can actually house and service them.

I am split on Trident, in all honesty. It doesn't really fit the needs of the security situation today - but those aren't necessarily going to be the threats of the future. NATO is deploying (or has deployed) ground troops to Eastern Europe to deter further Russian aggression. The nuclear deterrent is the "stick behind the back" of that policy.
 
Hello, I'm new here so not sure if I'm allowed to vote or what but as a uk citizen I would vote against renewing it, I would say we did need it back in the cold war but these days it's not needed and the money can so badly be used elsewhere. out of all the countries in the world, how many have nukes.. 6-7? it's no deterrent these days and we'd never use them anyway. (amusing thing: we have to ask the americans permission launch them!)
 
I'm in favour of renewing, with a heavy heart.

My idealistic side wants the UK to de-arm; but I don't think we're ready to do so yet.

My chief concerns are
1. The loss of influence. Being a nuclear capable country does make the UK a significant player in world affairs.
2. Loss of expertise and skills.
3. Things have become very uncertain for the UK.

I think despite the renewal, we should also be investing heavily in mutual disarmament around the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom