Government wins Trident submarine debate

I suspect most British members have already seen this on the news, but the government has won the vote to decide whether the UK should construct a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines to carry its Trident nuclear missiles.

The government has won Commons support for plans to renew the UK's nuclear submarine system, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.

Tony Blair had said it was "essential" the UK began the £20bn plan to renew Trident as soon as possible.

After six hours of debate, 409 MPs supported the proposals, and 161 were against - a majority of 248.

Source

Personally, I stand by my view that this is the right way to go. Yes, it would be fantastic to live in an ideal world where nuclear weapons could be eradicated. But we don't - and with new threats on the horizon such as Iran, China and North Korea, in addition to the potential re-emergence of old threats such as Russia, I think this is a very sensible decision. It can also deter rogue states from sponsoring terrorism as it's likely that an attack carried out on behalf of a rogue state by a terrorist group would be treated as a direct attack by said rogue state.

Predictably, the government needed Tory votes to pass this one since nuclear weapons has been a subject which has divided the Labour Party since the 1980s.

I think it's worth pointing out that this vote was to secure the design of the new generation of submarines (which carry the missiles), not the Trident missiles or the warheads themselves. A lot of the media seem to be portraying this as the government trying to renew the entire system. A decision to replace those will probably be taken over the next decade or so.

Personally, I stand by my view that this is the right way to go. Yes, it would be fantastic to live in an ideal world where nuclear weapons could be eradicated. But we don't - and with new threats on the horizon such as Iran, China and North Korea, in addition to the potential re-emergence of old threats such as Russia

Dont ya think its kinda double standards? Where on one hand, Our Goverment are telling Govs of ther soveirgn nations, that they cannot have nuclear weapons or even make them, while they are planning to replace our arsenal of nukes. Off course you could easily turn round and say but the leaders of those countries are fanatics, or have actually said, they wanted the destruction of another nation. But dont ya think T.Bliar is just fanatic as any of the otherleaders.

I think it's worth pointing out that this vote was to secure the design of the new generation of submarines (which carry the missiles), not the Trident missiles or the warheads themselves. A lot of the media seem to be portraying this as the government trying to renew the entire system. A decision to replace those will probably be taken over the next decade or so.

Im under the impression its to replace trident not the submarines?? that is why it is costing 20 billion to replace the current missiles, system etc...

Nevermind just read, article on it it is to replace the submarines not the system itself, some amount of money anyways to replace them eh.

Only thing Im bothered about is them submarines being placed in scotland, Nothing like placing a big Bullseye on scotland eh, thanks T.Blair.

There's actually an interesting article about the towns around the sub bases in Scotland saying that - whilst some of the residents dislike nuclear weapons - the base provides the economic backbone of the area. 7,000 or so civilian jobs, I believe.

Is Tony Blair a fanatic? No. Compare him to Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il and the man is a saint. Besides which, he'll be long gone when this new generation of submarine enters service in 2024. The big difference between, say, the UK/US/France having nuclear weapons and Iran having nuclear weapons is that the former will use them responsibly. The person who takes the decision to use nuclear weapons in the UK/US/France is a democratically elected person (I suppose when you go to vote in an election you should think "Do I trust the leader of this party with the power to wipe out a significant proportion of the planet?"). Iran is more likely to use them as it's a fundamentalist regime, and there's a prime target in the region (Israel) which the Iranian president has already threatened to "wipe off the map". I don't believe it's double standards for precisely that reason - I know the UK will use them in defence only, whereas Iran has the potential to use them for offensive means or to supply them to terrorist groups. We don't live under a rock - this could happen.

North Korea is also a potential threat - it has a long way to go before it develops a suitable delivery system (Especially one that can hit the UK) but I'm really not willing to risk it. Think back a century - It's 1907. Europe has been relatively peaceful, living standards are on the rise. Just seven years later, one of the most terrible wars in history began - the First World War. A lot can change in the space of five years, let alone fifty. History is absolutely littered with examples of this, and we should take heed before immediately condemning the decision that Parliament took today.

I'm not sure it makes Scotland much more of a target... the subs aren't much use when they're parked in Scotland. They become a threat when they're out at sea, because they essentially have unlimited range and two thirds of the earth to hide in (two of the advantages of having a sub-based system).

The missiles themselves cost about £15million each - we have about fifty missiles, so that's approximately £750million for them (which we've already paid). The subs are obviously the main cost, since they've got to carry these missiles safely, have facilities for the crew, state of the art equipment and so forth.

It’s a good thing as long as we have nukes we will never be invaded.
It’s a good thing because if someone does start handing out WMD to terrorists we will have the ability to deal with whatever the source of those WMD’s is .
Today’s is a long term decision that will pay dividends if ether we have to fall back on the concept of mutually assured destruction, like the Cold War (which probably prevented a conventional war at least the size of world war two).

What gets me in today’s climate (most) is China’s interest in anti satellite missiles. Everyone knows they have an oppressive censorship system, but I doubt they’re investing hundreds millions with a view to one day (maybe) targeting Rupert’s Murdoch’s News International (as much as I like the thought of it!!).

Spencerjohnstone You’re completely right our nukes is a case of double standard. But the concept of “fairness” isn’t intricately linked to what’s in the interests of Britain’s Defence. If it was, should we reduce our numbers of bullets to Iran’s number of bullets? (Dare I say making the prospect of an Iranian first strike so much easier).

A Real Problem…
The fairness of nuclear weapons possession is also “off the ball” if you believe…
The main reason why an ever increasing number of countries seeks to be at least a “stand-by nuclear power” is because they feel seriously threatened by our possession of conventional weapons.
The fact they feel threatened by our conventional arms is a massive foreign policy failure that I make little or no excuses for.
I blame people like Bush, Blair and Cheney for showing the world that if you really do unilaterally disarm we’ll bomb you with conventional bombs, set loose anarchy, then hang you in the way we hanged Saddam. The “regime doctrine” (so be it using conventional weapons) is what’s fuelled the current global rogue race towards the obvious WMD “security ticket”.
It’s an unnecessary problem because I believe the way towards regime change is by funding enemies within a regime. The secret service and spies have been used to finance freedom against oppressive regimes in past, and the more unpopular the better it works. And if a liberated people promises to be no better than the current government, then surely no type of warfare is the answer? I believe conventional war is for defence and not much else.

Like Ste2652 says it would be great to live in a world where no one has nukes (so long as someone like Kim Jim or the Iranian President wasn’t in the course of changing that). The problem is you cannot change the laws of physics, what’s possible has always been possible; like with many things, global scientific ignorance was the only defence against that in the past, but we live in a world where other countries are (sometimes quite independently) catching up on the scientific discoveries of some 62-3 years ago.




Should…
1. The unfairness of our massive conventional and unconventional military advantages (both military and numerical) where somehow levelled,
2. And if all countries in the world agreed not to go war again.
3. If there was a un corrupt and politically neutral way of governing this.
4. And if we (and also no one else) could no longer use things like commerce (like currency manipulation and foreign trade) to provoke the need for war, or “gesture politics” then (and only then) would there be no need for nuclear weapons, (bar perhaps a few stored at the U.N).
(I say “like the U.N” because today’s U.N is anything but neutral; you only have to look to Middle East for that).

Try and get to that state of world politics first!!!
Before we’re even half way there’s a good chance that the new version of nukes will already be outdated.
In fact it might never be accomplished because in the history of humankind it never has; some would say that the concept of a politically neutral body able to prevent wars is (like Communism) at collision with human nature.

Argument for Disarmament…
The main argument I see for getting rid of nukes is if in exchange so too do our would-be enemies. Yet great Britain only has a small number of nukes; so how does it benefit a would-be enemy to engage in arms reduction talks if all our arsenal belongs (or is even in) the scrap heap?

Think about this question immorally as that’s the way the sorts of people who rule by torturing and killing the opposition generally think. And isn't this is the sort of leadership, the western leadership, has a long track record of being in conflict with?

You only need to look at one war scenario which can feasibly happen to justify having nuclear weapons on standby.

If America, our supposed NATO protectors should we become 'virtually nuclear', have their nuclear hands tied by any single political reason which prevents them from using their weapons in our defence then we can be held to ransom by any independent nation who has either submarines parked off our coast or ICBM's aimed at us. For example... were Russia or China to have a multi-billion dollar vested interest in Iran while Iran proceeded to blackmail the UK with nuclear weapons, then a scenario could develop whereby the US could not attack Iran for fear of triggering an unstoppable chain of events.

Russian investment in Iranian railways
Iran steps up russian crude oil imports
Iran and Russia co-operate in oil and gas exploration
China and Iran sign biggest oil and gas deal
Russia calls for gas alliance with Iran to combat European consumer cartel

The government has a responsibility to protect us, and having nuclear weapons instantly nullifies the threat of attack from another nation. Attacks from independent organisations such as Al-Qaeda is a different thing, but it should always be remembered that nations use the guise of independent organisations to meet their own objectives by proxy whilst distancing themselves from blame, as seems to be the case with the Mujahadeen and other Islamic expansionist organisations.