Thank god Blair didn’t suggest replacing Trident with an Embryonic supernatural pornographic bomb…..

I remember years ago doing a psychology lab during my degree which asked people to assess risks to see if there were gender differences.

Most women when asked would they try to escape from a POW camp if they were starving said “Yes” it was worth it, but on moving in with their partner if they weren’t sure about the relationships long term future, they almost all said no.

So what are we actually seeing here, an opposition to nuclear weapons or different perceptions of risk and how to deal with it. It could be that men support Trident, on the basis that we shouldn’t back down and if they hit us we hit them harder, and women think that we should avoid the fight and walk away if one starts.

I’ve always thought that Trident should be seen in the context of the consequences of failure. If we come to a conflict with Iran because they invade Iraq, and we back down, they get Iraq.

If it comes to it and we both go nuclear we all die, so I suspect letting them have Iraq is the least worst option.

Peter.

It’s surprising that as many as 35% of Conservatives should be opposed to Trident (albeit 64% are in favour, the highest % of any party).

Back in the eighties, the number of unilateralist Conservatives could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Can ee have a poll asking a choice - say Trident or no council tax for whatever it would be, say ten years. I think I know the amount of people supporting Trident then. After all, it’s not Trident or not. It’s Trident or other ways to spend the money…

I am now opposed to replacing/continuing with Trident or any similar system of nuclear weapons but would have been strongly in favour in the 1980s and regarded it as of absolute inportance in the 60s/70s. Times change: attitudes change : people change. We cannot and should not afford this expenditure over more important choices. Also it serves little or no real purpose in the current interdependent geopolitical situation.

Hi Anthony,
I’d be interested in the figures for those other 3 subjects you mentioned.

Andy - click on the link to the YouGov poll about nuclear power, I link to all three in that post.

Sean: I am a Tory and I oppose replacing Trident because its an entirely pointless waste of taxpayers money, not because of “unilateralist” concerns as afflicted Labour in the eighties. The number of “unilateralist” Tories could likely still be counted on one hand, but now we have other factors to include, such as that its simply no longer worth having.

I don’t see the need to replace Trident with son-of-Trident. If we were to spend at least a portion of the money not spent on that on conventional weapons and equipment, ie a radio system that works or on increasing the actual size of the armed forces, I’d be much happier. We’re trying to do too much with too little and on the cheap.
3 friends of mine have left the TA in the last 18 months, and another Regular friend of my brother - all 4 with at least 2 tours of Iraq/Afghanistan. From all they say, and from what I can find out, the Army, at least, is going to be paying the price in men and materiel for years to come.
A new Trident-type system is not only a luxury this country cannot afford, but a redundant weapon system for the way the world is now and will remain for a long time to come.

I don’t think its that strange, Sean, as there clearly is a difference between the 1980s, when a hostile (at least in the early part) Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear warheads, many aimed at us, and today.

There is a case for Trident, but I don’t think it does the government and its cheerleaders much good to pretend - as I think they have been doing - that the situation now is more or less the same as it was. Conservative voters tend to be quite pragmatic people and I think they realise it isn’t.

Here’s the problem with all you people opposing replacing Trident because “times have changed”: after the collapse of the Soviet Union the mainstream view was that we lived in a safer world and hence we could afford to scale back defence spending.

Well, we now know the world is no safer - indeed it’s much less safe, and the threat is diffuse. We need a diffuse response dealing with different aspects of the threat - let’s be clear that although the Soviet Union has gone there is still a (smaller) number of states for which a nuclear element is still needed.

AND we need to develop our defence against those enemies who do not operate at a state-level for which you’re right: a nuclear deterrent is not appropriate. But simply because it isn’t appropriate for one aspect of our national security does not mean it isn’t appropriate at all.

None of which has anything to do with the fact, demonstrated yet again in this poll, that women are apparently genetically unsuitable to take decisions about national security (Margaret Thatcher being a stark exception).

Actually Sean looking at the poll I think my claim is substantiated by t he Tory supporters being the only ones who have more anti-Trident having changed their minds, than having always been anti it.

I’m not sure about the poll though as it doesn’t separate the replace Trident options into a) the government’s preferred idea of replacing it with a very similar system, or b) replacing it with a cheaper and less effective system.

“women are apparently genetically unsuitable” - really. Aside from Mrs Thatcher, there’s been Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto and Golda Meir who all oversaw nuclear programmes, including the country’s first test for Ghandi.

Anthony, Is there any evdence that some people simply reject any idea put forward by the government? I notice most people appeared to be in favour of devolving power to the regions but when given the option they voted against; presumably because it was turned into a mini referendum on ‘the government’. I’m wondering if the high number of Tory voters ‘against’ a new Trident are simply against the idea of a Labour Government and anything it offers up?

I think Brian Swift could be on to something here. Remember how those Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums were lost in 1979 mainly because of the unpopularity of Jim Callaghan’s government.

The whether to replace Trident argument requires a risk assessment, where you balance the likelyhood of an event with it’s consequences. So nuclear attack might be unlikely but given it’s effects it would be a disaster.

The problem with much of the current pro attitude is that deterrents assumes rationality, ie

“They wouldn’t attack us because we would attack them and the cost outweighs the gain”.

They then go on to talk about what they term as dangerous, unstable, unpredicatble regimes like Iran or North Korea.

But of course if these regimes really are unstable, then they can’t expect to be detered and therefore scared of trident. That was one of the arguments that emerged over Iraq, that trident won’t deter a nutter like Sadam so we have to act before he gets the bomb.

Equally the argument that it might be unlikely but ” well you never no”, ie possibility over probability, means that we should take any possibility no matter how unlikely seriously, such as a surprise attack by the US on Britain.

In reality we take no precautions at all against a US attack because we don’t think it will happen. Those who make the same judgement about an attack by North Korea are portrayed as being reckless with the countries security but in effect thay are simply making a slightly different risk assessment.

Finally there is the idea of the consequences of failure. If in some future dispute a non nuclear Uk faces a beligerent Iran, we would probably have to back down or worst still they would take out a British city first. The worst case scenario is pretty grim.

If on the other hand we have the same scenario and we take the worst case, we fire our 120 warheads at them and they fire their 35 at us, which is a far worse outcome than the non nuclear scenario.

Peter.

Peter, again, your argument seems to fail to make any distinction between different types of enemy. During the Cold War, it was rational to assume that the USSR would be deterred from using its nuclear weapons because of the annihilation upon it that would be unleashed in response.

There remain states for which such a “rational” argument remains. Hence for them a nuclear deterrent remains a legitimate and potent means of defence.

There are, as you cite, other rogue states and non-state organisations for whom a “rational” argument will not work.

With respect, the argument about North Korea is not whether they will attack us, but whether they will either a) sell their technology to others who will attack us or b) attack our allies in the region. So holding stable, democratic nations to a different standard to autocratic regimes run by lunatics is something rather more than a “slightly different risk assessment”.

I have to say though that the fundamental disagreement between us is that you regard surrendering to an enemy like Iran as preferable to beating them given the casualties on both sides that would be incurred in so doing. I’m sure there were plenty (and, getting back to the poll in question, a lot more women than men) who held that sort of view about fighting Hitler. I do not.

“Finally there is the idea of the consequences of failure. If in some future dispute a non nuclear Uk faces a beligerent Iran, we would probably have to back down or worst still they would take out a British city first. The worst case scenario is pretty grim.

If on the other hand we have the same scenario and we take the worst case, we fire our 120 warheads at them and they fire their 35 at us, which is a far worse outcome than the non nuclear scenario.” - Peter, its arguments like yours that could almost convince me that we do need nukes.

The real reason we don’t need nukes is because we can free-ride off the Americans so there’s no need to pay for them ourselves. If it weren’t for them then I’d want nukes for precisely the kind of situation you describe, but that is a fundamental philosophical disagreement I suspect.

Much of the rest of the world survives quite happily without nuclear arms so we should be able to manage. It’s all a game to pretend we are important in world affairs, but we slipped off the big table long age- we just haven’t recognised it. Look at how Saudi Arabia can now treat us, for example. If we did not have nuclear weapons we might actually learn the real art of diplomacy rather than the bully tactics we use now. Come on, the whole point of Nato is an tack on one is an attack on all; and well before anyone fired a random nuclear weapon at us the vast array of America’s weapons (and the rest of the world’s) would be ready to go first.

It’s posturing, overall, for the tabloid newspapers.

Adam,

If hitler had had nuclear weapons along with britain and France in 1939, we would have let him have Poland. We only fought because we were confident we could stop him and win, we wouldn’t have risked nuclear war for Poland.

Likewise, we wouldn’t risk a nuclear exchange with N Korea to save S Korea or Japan, or one with Iran to save Iraq, or Saudi arabia, no matter how big the bung…

It’s only a direct threat of nuclear attack by another state that Trident protects us against, and that makes no sense for a rational state that isn’t a super power and won’t deter an irrational one.

The stock answer to the legitamate question,

” Why would Iran threaten a nuclear attack on the UK” is ” Well you never know, so lets keep it just in case”,

Apart from that being a good reason for Iran to develop them, if you substitute Iran for Israel, and Uk for Iran, it is still unbalanced in that it assumes that we can’t predict their actions with regards to future aggression, but we can in regards to Trident.

We will be safe because they will be detered, is an act of faith in deterrence that can’t be backed up by facts, as you can neither determine to what extent the Soviet union was prepared to use it’s, or if Britain having seperate weapons from the US made a blind bit of difference.

If we assume dual rationality, then Iran won’t threaten and Trident will work.

If we assume dual irrationality, they will threaten and Trident won’t work.

I am happy with either but just can’t logically accept the mix.

They will be irrational and threaten and attack, but be rationallly detered

or I suppose, the opposite,

They will be rational and not threaten, but won’t be detered,

Iran could threaten non nuclear Germany, but the US and Nato would be drawn in, so why not that option for us.

Peter.

Peter,

If Hitler had nukes as well as us, and we had said that we’d use them defend Poland, then Poland would never have been invaded, because Hitler would not have wanted to be nuked and the whole thing would have been avoided.

If you can’t assume nuclear war will be risked by one nation for another that doesn’t have nukes, then clearly we can’t rely on the Americans and must have our own nukes.

Phil.

Hitler was the type to call our bluff, would he have risked war counting on us to have backed down, quite probably, because that was what he had done in Austria the sudatenland and Czechaslovakia, and Poland wouldn’t be nuclear so couldn’t hit back.

If he had called our bluff, then we wouldn’t have statrted a nuclear war for Poland, because having called our bluff we would be pretty sure Hitler was the type too go to the wire, and once you are both there one slit and you both fall.

Can we rely on the US nuclear guarentee to save us? no, no more than Germany can, as the US might back down, but it is unlikely in the case of anything like a near parity opponent, which is really still only Russia.

In the end it’s about probability not possibility, anything is possible but most of it unlikely, like the US surprise attack on the UK.

You prepare for the probably and adapt to the unexpected.

If you try to prepare for everything that’s possible, you end up wasting most of your energy defending against things that will never happen, like spending billions building aircraft carriers that can take helicopters to the gulf, while in Afghanistan the troops don’t have enough helicopters.

Equally the US in a conflict with Iran might actually fire first, as Iran is unlikely to be able to hit them, in which case the Iranians may choose Munich or Brussels, Baghdad or Riyhad, or indeed Bristol or Cardiff trident or no Trident.

Problem is we can’t rely on Trident either, like I said if they are irrational enough to threaten then they might well call our bluff, and if that happens even if we retaliate we have still lost. The US didn’t use nukes in Korea or vietnam, and I suspect nor would Tehran.

Can I be sure, no, but then the problem with Trident is that you can’t be sure either, there is only the hope that it will work, and for £25 bn I’d want more than that.

Like the WW2 scenario, you are either resting your security on the hope that he won’t do it, or he won’t push it, or both. How much resources you put in really depends on your assessment of the threat , how likely it is and how serious.

As a Scottish nationalist, I can’t see any realistic scenario for the forseeable future ( 20 years) that would require Scotland to have a deterent, so I wouldn’t waste my money.

Equally as I see deterents not as a holy grail but rather just another government policy, like the poll tax, minimum wage, or CSA, I think it can fail and the consequences of failure are a lot worse when they are nuclear than conventional.

I think it was Douglas Alexander who recently said, nuclear fall out won’t stop at the border and he was right, what he didn’t point out was that a lot less peole would die in glasgow from the fall out from Newcastle, than would did in Newcastle, or for that matter Glasgow if it was the target.

Behind Trident and the seat at the top table there is a lot of never surrender nonsense from politicians who have never even seen a gun, let alone fired one.

If I had a choice between letting Iran beat Saudi Arabia or swapping nukes with them, I know which I’d prefer.

Peter.

Peter, your argument about Hitler appears to rest on the assertion that we went to war over Poland. Well, we didn’t - it was a catalyst, sure, but the issue of Poland was more that Germany had shown that its assurances made to Chamberlain were - literally - not worth the paper they were written on.

Hence it was national interest, not Poland’s interest that prompted our intervention into WW2 - in precisely the same way that it was Pearl Harbour, not altruistic concern over the future of Japan that brought the US into it.

From there you move back to the issue of North Korea vs. Japan and South Korea. You’re right that we (as in the UK) would probably not be involved in any nuclear exchange in this region, but not for the reasons you suggest; and in any event, you’re again making the (in my view false) case that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons principally for its own use, rather than for selling onto a high bidder.

As such I don’t see a realistic scenario of North Korea launching a nuclear attack; nonetheless, it could well launch a new nuclear arms race in Asia, which could have wider consequences for us (again, arguments in favour of the UK retaining a nuclear deterrent).

I’m not sure who you’re getting your stock answers from, Peter, because the “let’s keep nuclear weapons in case Iran gets them” was specifically not my argument - Iran is not one of the nations a nuclear deterrent does what it says on the label for. It is for states like (increasingly unstable) Russia.

Finally, and sorry but this is your weakest argument: that we shouldn’t have a nuclear deterrent because we’ll be looked after by the US (and how odd, incidentally, that the very people who seem to be arguing this are the ones who miss no opportunity for slating the US and regarding it as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran…)!

Well, some of us believe in shouldering our share of the responsibility for defending ourselves, rather than hiding behind others.

Adam,

If you are worried in case the Russians come back, by all means back nuclear, but make it power not weapons, if the Russians want to make a point they’ll just turn the gas off and Trident can sail around the Atlantic while we all freeze.

Whether it was for Poland, or to stop Hitler is irrelevant, we wouldn’t have gone to nuclear war with him, to save anything in the old Austria/Hungary sphere of influence right up to and probably including Greece, and as Hitler never particularly wanted war with France and Britain he’d have probably been pretty happy with that.

Retaining Trident in case a military basket case like the Russia does something in twenty or thirty years is daft, as not only is it highly improbable, but at the current rate of technological change we have no idea is SLBM’s will actually work.

We started designing the Eurofighter in the cold war and we have now coming in to service the only fifth generation fighter that wasn’t built with stealth in mind, it’s been overtaken by events.

They can already track subs is shallow water from orbit, and even the updated soviet GPS can put a warhead to within 100m anywhere on earth.

I’d have serious doubts that in twenty years time Trident will have time to be told to target, let alone fire.

As to there being consequences for us of a nuclear arms race in asia, unless we choose to get involved why should it, I haven’t noticed us getting alarmed or involved in India and Pakistans little race.

You seem to be getting close to circular reasoning,

We need to be concerned about these things as we are a big player with nuclear weapons and that brings us responsibilities, so we need to get involved and to get involved we need nuclear weapons, so we can be a big player, that gets involved, because of our responsibilities, and on and on and on.

Alternatively you could just get off the merry go round and go about your business without them, like Australia, or New Zealand, Brazil or Argentina.

As to shouldering our responsibilities, how much are you planning to spend on a totally independent deterent with no US input, let alone an advanced UK only ballistic missile defence system.

lets be honest we aren’t really doing it ourselves we are only pretending too.

Peter.

I think what disturbs me most about this is that it seems a straight choice between trident or nothing. I feel we have to have something that deters a nuclear attack, or some worse problem, on a just-in-case basis, but no real thought seems to have been devoted to what and how. If we were buying anything else we’d look for alternatives (surely?) I feel we’re being railroaded into something simply because someone’s got some spare trident missles they want to sell.

I’ still prefer a decent real army; a war involving trident etc. means the end of the world after all. We needa real army and the art of diplomacy rather than the art of posturing which we have now. Out of interest it is an issue on which I shift my vote.

Jack

Real armies cost real money. I’m no authority but I guess the most telling argument is economic. I bet Trident is simply cheaper.

Jack.

true but most of Europe, including the likes of Germany spend about £350-£400 ahead on defence per year. The Uk and france spend closer to £550-£600, about £200 a head more, which in the Uk case is about £10bn above the european average.

That’s not just Trident like the French we also have attack submarines and Aircraft carriers, that £200 a head is both nuclear and conventional force projection.

At the end of the day if you want a seat at the top table you seem to have to have both and that’s what it costs you. The question is, is the ability to nuke Tehran or help invade Iraq something we want, and if it is , is it worth £10 bn a year…

I don’t want to have a seat at th etop table as I don’t think it does us any real good, and i can think of a lot of things we could do with £10 bn that are more worthwhile.

Peter.

Given that the government nicks hundreds of billions a year from us in taxes, mostly flittered away and wasted, ten billion to give us the power it does is positively cheap.

Put it in this comparison, how much does the UK waste on CAP? Significantly more I do believe, and that is positively negative for us and the world at large.

Philip,

“ten billion to give us the power it does is positively cheap”,

I must have missed something, because I can’t for the life of me see any power what so ever that it gives us.

All the reports this week seem to confirm that it sure as hell doesn’t give us any over the US, and we’re hardly defered to in the EU, or UN.

I think maybe inserting “we like to think we have” between power and does might be closer to the mark.

Oh and on the all the other money the governmemnt spends or wastes, if, I open my wallet and find I’ve lost £90 of the hundred I took out of the cash machine, I for one wouldn’t throw away the other tenner…..

Peter.

Lets see, in the time since Blair was elected we have:

Twice fought Iraq (’97 and ‘03)
Fought to save Kosovo, a fight of our own choosing (Clinton followed Blair, would he if we had no army, I think not!)
Taken action unilaterally, without the Americans, to help Sierra Leone.
Fought Afghanistan.

And much more.

Our army isn’t one just twiddling their thumbs. Under positive leaders like Thatcher we’ve been far less subservient to the US too. Whether you agree with the conflicts or not, they’ve been their and we’ve used our military.

Men and Women may be divided. Scotland, where Trident is located, and where there are other “Not in My Name” issues, is not. We will soon know if the timing of the Trident decision, and the way it will be imposed on the Labour Party and on parliament is the biggest mistake the Prime Minister has ever made.

We are now in the approach to elections for the Scottish Parliament. As it happens the SNP are gaining in the polls anyway, but the key factors are the opportunity for a split vote, and above all the fact that the four anti-Trident parties happen to be the pro-independence parties.

This mistake will end the Union and could lead to the remainder of the UK leaving the EU. Blairs legacy will be to destroy his own country.

Independence will not cause any nation to leave the EU, just the UK. Which is why the arguments are mostly a load of cobblers anyway - people talk about those who live in the other nation, trade between the nations etc, etc - all those will still be guaranteed by the EU anyway.

As the EU becomes more federal, the break-up of the EU becomes more likely IMO. A state-within a state-within a state makes no sense. Better for England, Scotland etc all to be states within the EU than to be states within the UK within the EU. A federal UK within the EU is rather pointless

But for Scottish independence, is trading sovereignty from the UK to the EU instead really “independent”?