Renewal of Trident (Commons vote today)

I'm firmly in the keep it camp, I happen to believe the threat of retaliation to be a major factor in stopping either side pressing the big red button in the last 50 odd years.
That aside, this vote throws up some interesting conflicts.
Pretty much all Scots MPs oppose the renewal of Trident, though a lot of the people around Faslane want to keep the nuke boats around purely for an economic reason. So many people and businesses rely upon them.

Now, since we are having this debate in parliament, is it not time perhaps to think about moving the whole base and fleet south? Maybe station them at Devonport or even build something new on Cornwall's Atlantic coast or the Welsh coast?

Since we are already looking at upwards of 100Bn quid for the lifetime of the new system, wouldn't a new base be only a moderate additional cost in all that? It would also make sense to think along these lines with the almost constant threat of Scottish secession from the Union.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I'm firmly in the keep it camp, I happen to believe the threat of retaliation to be a major factor in stopping either side pressing the big red button in the last 50 odd years.
That aside, this vote throws up some interesting conflicts.
Pretty much all Scots MPs oppose the renewal of Trident, though a lot of the people around Faslane want to keep the nuke boats around purely for an economic reason. So many people and businesses rely upon them.

Now, since we are having this debate in parliament, is it not time perhaps to think about moving the whole base and fleet south? Maybe station them at Devonport or even build something new on Cornwall's Atlantic coast or the Welsh coast?

Since we are already looking at upwards of 100Bn quid for the lifetime of the new system, wouldn't a new base be only a moderate additional cost in all that? It would also make sense to think along these lines with the almost constant threat of Scottish secession from the Union.

May just had a meeting with Sturgeon, Let them go already, who the f*** cares. CYA

I am a bit split on this and I tend to be a hands on sort of guy that thinks we need to stop p1ssing about and get on with the job in hand. That job would be buggering Scotland off "since it is what we are led to believe the Scots want" but then I still think there a lot of Scots that want to stay "British" and out of the EU..

Get another independance vote for the Scots and if they wish to get out of the UK and stay in the EU then great get on with it and leave, if that was the case bring Trident South and rejuvenate a English Naval town with the economical benefit of having such a program. Rocket science it is not (Or is it??)..


RA

Without getting into the rights or wrongs of keeping it, I believe that Devonport is generally though of as unsuitable as it would be too easy to track the boats coming in and out of harbour.

I suspect the problems with Cornwall or Wales would be mainly political. There are enough local protests about an existing base that has been there for years. Trying to build a new one would be a focal point for anti nuclear protesters.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of keeping it, I believe that Devonport is generally though of as unsuitable as it would be too easy to track the boats coming in and out of harbour.

I suspect the problems with Cornwall or Wales would be mainly political. There are enough local protests about an existing base that has been there for years. Trying to build a new one would be a focal point for anti nuclear protesters.

Talks of the base being moved to Sunderland were circling a few year ago, though I think it was tongue in cheek, I'll see if I can find a link...

Sunderland echo

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of keeping it, I believe that Devonport is generally though of as unsuitable as it would be too easy to track the boats coming in and out of harbour.

I suspect the problems with Cornwall or Wales would be mainly political. There are enough local protests about an existing base that has been there for years. Trying to build a new one would be a focal point for anti nuclear protesters.

Talks of the base being moved to Sunderland were circling a few year ago, though I think it was tongue in cheeck. I'll see if I can find a link...

Mackem's with Nukes! Time to invest in a bunker building company in Newcastle.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Haha. Sunderland docks has tonnes of basalt sitting off shore that coal ships used for bouyancy returning from London, it's pretty much what the docks are built on. In other words the docks could be extended.

They are pretty much empty too, a lot of work cleaning them up for the Queens golden jubilee.

I think we should keep our Nukes, sole reason is so we don't easily get taken off the map,,other than that get rid off them all in every country.

The BBC published an interesting article back in 2012 prior to the Scottish independence referendum speculating about where the Trident fleet might be based if the base in Scotland were no longer available. The leading candidates were Milford Haven in Wales, Plymouth, and Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. Other UK sites that were considered but ruled out for various reasons included Portland and Falmouth.

Interestingly, there were two sites outside of the UK that were considered: Ile Longue in Brittany (France) and King's Bay in Georgia (US). Ile Longue is the site of France's nuclear sub base, and the two countries have taken steps towards closer military cooperation recently; however, there are questions about the availability of space at the already-crowded base. King's Bay is the home base of many US Ohio-class missile submarines and is the site of maintenance facilities for Trident missiles themselves; as such, the Vanguard subs regularly visit King's Bay for maintenance and training.

The Scots don't seem to like regular nuclear power either. I guess they just think the world "nuclear" is evil.

By opposing nuclear power they are pretty much just supporting the coal and oil corporations. I wonder why they hate our planet so much?

Oh, and renew Trident please.

We must renew Trident.

If Scotland don't want them then we'll have to move them elsewhere.....but Holyrood can pay the benefits etc for those workers who will no longer be employed there.

Some people seem to assume that Trident would be replaced by Astute class submarines....why would Westminster and the M.O.D. agree to that?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of keeping it, I believe that Devonport is generally though of as unsuitable as it would be too easy to track the boats coming in and out of harbour.

I suspect the problems with Cornwall or Wales would be mainly political. There are enough local protests about an existing base that has been there for years. Trying to build a new one would be a focal point for anti nuclear protesters.

I guess no one wants to live very close to anywhere that stores nukes, hell, I wouldn't even fancy living any closer to Oldbury power station than I do
Can I ask what your personal view on disarmament is ?

a reply to: SprocketUK

In general I probably fall in to the phase out camp. I think x billion on replacing a weapon system we will never use and that is pretty morally indefensible is ridiculous. At the same time I would rather we got something out of giving them up such as reductions in nuclear weapons held elsewhere.

The problem is that all the 'compromise' options such as extending current lifespan or a scaled down alternative are either almost as expensive or deeply flawed (or both).

originally posted by: Freeborn
We must renew Trident.

If Scotland don't want them then we'll have to move them elsewhere.....but Holyrood can pay the benefits etc for those workers who will no longer be employed there.

Some people seem to assume that Trident would be replaced by Astute class submarines....why would Westminster and the M.O.D. agree to that?

You really think the MOD couldn't come up with a better way to spend the money? Given cut backs to the surface fleet the navy alone could spend the money before the tresuary had even finished writing the cheque.

There is no economic argument at all for keeping trident. We could give every affected employee a million pound pay off and it would still be cheaper.

a reply to: Freeborn

The Trident package could be altered, it doesn't need to have nuclear missiles though as an armament you can't pack much more of a punch. As a deterrent it would still have that point-blank appeal of an UZI emptying in your face without nuclear armament.

It IS a very unique club having the technical means and knowhow to build such vessels, we should stay in that club by all means.

A ridiculous weapon for a bygone age. The world in the 50's was very different to today. Back then we had power blocks that were very distinct from one another. Very little trade, minimal travel, paranoia. Do you lot remember the hassle to get behind the "iron curtain". With a paranoid seperate world back then the idea of MAD might, repeat might, make sense. It does not make sense today. We are an interconnected world, we trade with another. China needs us as customers not agitated enemies. Please don't start with the "Russian tanks rampaging across Europe" scenario. It is not going to happen. Putin poked and now the Russian economy is faltering. The original nuke owning countries are no danger to one another anymore. Putin is an arrogant git but he's not stupid.

North Korea. Well let's assume their pathetic "testing" is an indication of reality. North Korea has extensive underground facilities. They can survive a nuclear attack - deterrance ZERO, especially with madman at the helm!!!!

Terrorist group. These will use nukes anyway. They don't care - deterrance ZERO.

We are not safe by having nukes. The biggest danger is that a nuke housed in an unstable part of the world ends up in the hands of a terrorist group. This is exceedingly likely with Pakistan's nukes or NATO's nukes in Turkey (given the direction that Erdogan is clearly heading in).

There is not one single country without nukes that has bowed to pressure from a nuke country. The closest is the Ukraine which , ironically, gave up it's nukes and signed up to protection from the US, UK and RUSSIA (jaw dropper!!!). Even here Putin only occupied, by proxy, parts of the Ukraine that already had instability with a high Russian ethnicity.

Our biggest danger is from terrorist groups. Even when ISIS is defeated there will be others who will take their place and be just as ruthless. We can only protect ourselves from this in two ways :
1. Short term, use some nuke money for increased spending on convential army, properly kitted out(!!! Chilcott), with enough planes and ships for support. This will keep the people employed in that industry.
2. Long term, economic prosperity. The world MUST change it's economic model. The current model is not working. Across the globe power and wealth is being ever more concentrated in the hands of the few and the anger is swelling. That anger feeds extremism. THe remaining money used for nukes would be far better spent improving the lives of all UK citizens.

Nukes are useless.

YorkshireLad has broken it down better than any of us could.

Deterrence is low with the enemies we face...
In fact I bet they'd relish being nuked so it would turn a large percentage of the World to their cause...

Who do you nuke without "collateral damage" (read: mass murder)???

That's right, no one, unless we shove all the threats we face onto an Island.

There is simply no viable reason to have them IMO.

Mutually assured destruction doesn't help me sleep better...
If it came down to that I'd be disgusted with that sort of eye for an eye tactic...

Only a warmonger would think that achieved anything but quenching a bloodlust of innocent people just because we happened to get nuked.
Which isn't going to happen anyways.

Some of the people on here make my f***ing blood boil.

1. Let Scotand go, who f***ing cares already? - Great...let us the hell go then you muppet!
2. People at Faslane are basing their opposition on economic benefits of having it? Are you for real? Give all 520 employees directly affected by TRIDENT (not submarines) £1,000,000 each and we will still save £160,000,000,000.
3. Move Trident but let the Scots pay for the benefits? Are you kidding? Few in Scotland want it. Would you like Europes largest stockile of nukes next to your home town with convoys through the streets regularly?
4. Scotland seems to only rely on coal and oil and doesnt like nuclear? Yes thats true...it worked well for Chernobyl and Fukushima didnt it? Something like that happening in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK would destroy the country. Scotland is one of the worlds leaders in renewable energy. That is progressive policies...not war obsessed rich toff policies.

Scotland is far more progessive than any other UK nation. We always have been a nation of people who look to do good...we are just usually held back by the majority idiotic and ignorant that we HAVE to share these Isles with.

Scotland and its people are well within their right to not pay for Trident, or H2S or any other rediculous waste of money when so many people are being affected by austerity and cuts.

Lets also not forget that the nukes are leased from the US. We dont even actually own them, nor have the power to launch them. Do you really think the US cannot disarm them if they so choose? Wake the hell up people!

You all need to look at yourself in the mirror, and do it hard!

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Freeborn

The Trident package could be altered, it doesn't need to have nuclear missiles though as an armament you can't pack much more of a punch. As a deterrent it would still have that point-blank appeal of an UZI emptying in your face without nuclear armament.

It IS a very unique club having the technical means and knowhow to build such vessels, we should stay in that club by all means.

The issue with a conventional armed ICBM is who would you use it against. You wouldn't launch at a target even remotely close to a nuclear armed power as until the darn thing explodes they have no idea what it is carrying.

It is also very very expensive per launch so not a cost-effective way of blowing up tents in north Africa.