# You're the Prime Minister of the UK. Do you scrap Trident? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 19, 2016, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572 "2016-01-19T14:24:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/1 "2016-01-19T14:24:20Z")
Trident being the UK’s [nuclear weapons program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme), in the form of the nuke equipped _HMS Vanguard_, _HMS Victorious_, _HMS Vigilant_ and _HMS Vengeance_. The current leader of the Labour Party is opposed to the program and has suggested that we [get rid of the nukes, but keep the subs](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35337432), that nuclear weapons a holdover from the Cold War of zero use in today’s climate against the likes of ISIS. The [CND](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament) has campaigned against the UK having nuclear weapons since the '50s. If the decision was yours, what would you do? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/2 "2016-01-19T15:05:59Z")
Sending nuclear missile subs out without their missiles seems like about the stupidest idea likely to be heard this month. The linked BBC article says the motivation is to avoid putting a whole bunch of people out of a job - crepuscular thinking at best. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/3 "2016-01-19T15:11:21Z")
The system as it exists makes the U.K basically an adjunct of the US. US missiles[. US warheads](http://fas.org/blogs/security/2011/04/britishw76-1/),And provides zero flexibility. A UK nuclear deterrent is needed. The Vanguard-Trident system? Not so much. RAF Typhoons equipped with nuclear-tipped storm shadow missiles seems to be a better investment. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/4 "2016-01-19T15:34:28Z")
Since, in today’s world, the use of nuclear weapons would actually indicate they have failed in their primary purpose - deterrence - it ought to be theoretically possible to adapt the language of deterrence to an earlier set of thresholds than actual creation and deployment. The trouble is, getting there from here; it’s difficult enough with America, Russia, Britain and France (could we really adapt to an international environment where the French are willy-waving and we aren’t?), but once you bring China, India, Pakistan and Israel into the equation, not to mention North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/5 "2016-01-19T17:12:00Z")
Keep them-Labour must be strong on defence. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/6 "2016-01-19T17:18:49Z")
Sounds about right for Europe, let the USA spend all the money on your defense and protect you while calling us warmongers. ---
**Author:** ![Busy\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@Busy\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Busy_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/7 "2016-01-19T17:25:41Z")
It’s a thorny decision - looking at the weapon system as a geo-political negotiating device then the argument for having one is clear, IMHO. But then you could ask why would a government as bereft of stature as ours be concerning itself with geopolitical leadership, when it has no ideas to bring to the table? Then again, that is the short term, and it is possible that stronger government may emerge in later years. Then you have the cost - how do you quantify this when it’s a sort of massive inward investment into regions and people (and tax-intake) within the UK? Wouldn’t be my choice of investment, we could probably increase the science research budget 50 times over with this sort of funding, for example, but just making the point that it’s not a simple one-off expenditure. The technical pros and cons of the system I can’t comment on - although it certainly has its detractors in this area. So I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that it would be a brave decision to bin it off and I highly doubt this government has either the idealogy or bottle to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/8 "2016-01-19T22:10:53Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > If the decision was yours, what would you do? Keep the system, and pay for the upgrades. Fighters with tactical weapons make one a regional player, the strategic systems make a global player. If China did not have its deterrent, we would not be striving for consensus with them so much as dictating policy to them. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/9 "2016-01-19T22:11:57Z")
Would it make any sense at all just to scale back? Reduce from four to three? Fewer cruises? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/10 "2016-01-19T23:40:21Z")
The UK should have its own independent nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons have - for the most part - kept the peace these past 70 years. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/11 "2016-01-20T00:21:30Z")
Like the British would ever really give up nukes when the French have them. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/12 "2016-01-20T00:22:30Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Like the British would ever really give up nukes when the French have them. Ah, the _Yes Prime Minister_ argument. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/13 "2016-01-20T00:24:54Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Since, in today’s world, the use of nuclear weapons would actually indicate they have failed in their primary purpose - deterrence - Umm… no. That there’s been peace - more or less - for the past 70 years indicates their success. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/14 "2016-01-20T01:52:23Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Umm… no. That there’s been peace - more or less - for the past 70 years indicates their success. I think his point was if you use them, i.e. launch them, then the point of having them in the first place - deterrence - has failed. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/15 "2016-01-20T02:32:19Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The UK should have its own independent nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons have - for the most part - kept the peace these past 70 years. Specifically us Brits having nukes didn’t stop Argentina invading our Falklands. And sadly there’s been continuous wars since 1945. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/16 "2016-01-20T03:19:24Z")
I would scrap both the missile and the subs and instead negotiate a deal where we paid a yearly fee to the US to be formally covered by their deterrence (in addition to NATO). This is basically the deal that Japan and South Korea has with the US. I would imagine that such a fee would be considerably less than the cost of operating and upgrading Trident. Some UK nationalists would complain but since the UK is already dependent on the US for the actual warheads I don’t see much difference. Put the money saved into infrastructure and education. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/17 "2016-01-20T03:51:28Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Sounds about right for Europe, let the USA spend all the money on your defense and protect you while calling us warmongers. But hasn’t it been USA’s decision to project power all over the world? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/18 "2016-01-20T09:10:43Z")
> [@glee](#): > > Specifically us Brits having nukes didn’t stop Argentina invading our Falklands. We didn’t need to use them to get the Falklands back. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/19 "2016-01-20T10:42:13Z")
Polaris could not hit Argentina, at least not without several days sailing time. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572/20 "2016-01-20T19:55:52Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Polaris could not hit Argentina, at least not without several days sailing time. Sure, but what would make you think that the British boomers would be hanging out at Faslane? Everything I’ve read says “at least one is always at sea”, but I’d imagine during something like the Falklands War, there was probably one in the general European vicinity, and a second a lot closer to Argentina. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-prime-minister-of-the-uk-do-you-scrap-trident/743572.md?page=2)