Nukes - Upgrade Or disarm?

[Bazzlad]

[Edit]As the nukes we have are going out of date soon [/edit] Should Britain upgrade the existing Nuclear weapons we have, or should we set a precedent and disarm? Discuss.

[kalniel]

What do you mean by upgrade?

Are you saying it's a choice between increasing the capability or having nothing at all? Or do we get an inbetween option of just maintaining the current equipment?

[neonplanet40]

update tbh. THe world isnt in a peaceful enough state lately to have none.

Neon

[Bazzlad]

They're going out of date in a few years. So the choice is UPGRADE or DISARM.

[chrestomanci]

Err, Neither

What about keeping what we have? Much cheaper than upgrading, but still an effective deterant, especialy against smaller states (Iran, N.Korea etc)

Having Hundreads of missiles, each with a dozen warheads may be sensible if the enemy is Russa, who might get lucky and take out most of the stockpile in a pre-emptive strike, but it is hardly necessary if the enemy is a small Rouge dictatorship, or terroist state that might only manage to coble together one or two bombs.

[Taz]

Upgrading will simply mean that countries that don't have nukes will want them as well because they feel threatened.

If the UK had no nukes and other countries had nukes, would the UK feel threatened and be entitled to/want nukes? I would say yes and yes.

[Bazzlad]

Err, Neither

What about keeping what we have? Much cheaper than upgrading, but still an effective deterant, especialy against smaller states (Iran, N.Korea etc)

Having Hundreads of missiles, each with a dozen warheads may be sensible if the enemy is Russa, who might get lucky and take out most of the stockpile in a pre-emptive strike, but it is hardly necessary if the enemy is a small Rouge dictatorship, or terroist state that might only manage to coble together one or two bombs.

Not going to happen:
A decision on the replacement of Trident is expected in the next few years and probably in the current Parliament (before the next general election). The then Defence Secretary John Reid has been quoted as saying "I defy anyone here to say we will not need a nuclear weapon in 20 to 50 years time".[33] "We have always maintained that as long as some other nuclear state which is a potential threat has nuclear weapons we will retain ours. That is the assumption from which we start but it has to be tested in discussions with others and it will be

[snedger]

Well, as they say, no nukes is good nukes.

I would rather have my country be invaded than have my country use such appalling weapons to indiscriminately slaughter civilians in goodness knows which foreign land.
They had a purpose as a deterrent during the nuclear arms race - but that is over now and so if there are no nuclear enemies with long range delivery systems, that would mean that we had nuclear arms that could be used against non-nuke nations and that is just disgusting.
We'll have to have the nukes in order to do our fair share of world policing with the US, so unforunately there can't be a logical debate about it.

[Bazzlad]

Just because something isn't going to change now, doesn't mean it's nto debating. I love debating, as I only have my own views/facts and opinions and like to get a more rounded complete view. (Unless it's "American blue up the twin towers lol lol rotflmao"

[loafer]

No point in being a rich island and soft target, that's just asking for trouble.

[Funkstar]

I say dissarm.

I don't see the point in them at all.

[99Flake]

I put yes, but I don't agree with the wording of 'immediately'. What we have now is sufficient. The one advantage is that they are not ground silo based missiles. They are out at sea on the worlds most advanced submarines. There is no point in having a great weapon if your platform is not good enough to launch it. New weapons would mean a huge refit to the 4 existing Vanguard class subs - if not new ones and they are no way near the end of their useful life. I would say they will need changing in the next 10 - 15 years though.

[kalniel]

They're going out of date in a few years. So the choice is UPGRADE or DISARM.

What about just update rather than upgrading?

[Bazzlad]

America are updating theres, but word from No 10, hints heavily towards upgrading.

[snedger]

Just because something isn't going to change now, doesn't mean it's nto debating. I love debating, as I only have my own views/facts and opinions and like to get a more rounded complete view. (Unless it's "American blue up the twin towers lol lol rotflmao"

Bazzlad,
Hope I haven't unintentionally caused offence. I didn't mean that we shouldn't debate it here, I love debating as well, I meant that in places that will ultimately count, like parliament, there could not be a logical debate, because of the utter importance of playing our part with the 'mirkins.

[kalniel]

America are updating theres, but word from No 10, hints heavily towards upgrading.

I guess it depends what's being upgraded. I suspect upgrade in this case means improving the reliability and/or future servicing costs, which I would agree with.