Democracy strengthened

Sorry not sure of your point rose

We have had peace in this country, whichever way you choose to look at it.

My point is, all countries do what is best for themselves.

Does anyone honestly think that Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Spain Italy Portugal, Australia, Canada, Japan, Brazil etc., are in more danger of a nuclear attack than us, for instance?

And if so, why?

Surely these countries have had the same kind of 'peace' as we have had since the end of WW2?

America, Russia, France, China, Pakistan, N Korea . India. Israel and the UK have nuclear war heads. So we are spending millions to renew our war heads because we may be attacked by one of the other eight countries ?

India, Pakistan . N Korea and Israel developed nuclear warfare because the other five had it , so we first developed it because we thought we should protect ourselves against Russia, China, France and America ?

Russia has 7,500 warheads, America has 7,200 , N Korea fewer than 10, the U K 215 - this is us being well armed ?

If we assume we will not be bombed off the face of the earth by America let's take Russia as this threat we need to defend against , 7,500 warheads against our 215 , bet that scares them

It is not a deterrent it's - we must be up there with the big boys because we are soooo important , we use to be an Empire

Soon,if you believe we can fire back if we are attacked because only one quarter will be killed please take note how many died in Hiroshima in 1945 and seventy years on these weapons are far, far more powerful than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima

Nuclear warfare is not a deterrent

Rosesarered, what peace have we had since 1945 ?

Yes, Anya, I really do think that as more unstable governments/ countries around the globe get their hands on nuclear capabilities, then the more at risk other countries without them become.
Australia is a bit out on it's own geographically speaking, but any other in the future will be more at risk.
It's a bit bluff and double bluff, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, any country which has them will be avoided or taken more seriously.
If the whole world ditched them at the same time, fine, but this will bever happen, and more and more countries are trying to build them.

Sigh.

X-posts roses ...that was to a previous poster!

We have had peace here since 1945 this is a simple fact.
choosing to take part, or intefere with outcomes in other countries was exactly that, a choice.

I don't think saying "I would never press the button" is a sensible thing to say at all. What would be the point of even having nuclear capablities if you were not using them as a potential threat? This would be like a policeman carrying a truncheon, taser or gun and saying to the whole criminal world "don't worry, I know we carry them but we would NEVER EVER use them". Ridiculous.

We won't be getting rid of our nuclear weapons, however much anyone wants it.

I agree with your first sentence roses but think that these types of governments, such as North Korea, wouldn't care either way if we had the capacity to retaliate.

Re Australia, I think part of my stance on this subject was reading Neville Shute's 'On The Beach' in the 60s.

Also think we should step off the world stage politically and adopt a lesser role, one in which we act as part of the UN or similar.

Exactly gillybob.That is why Corbyn will bever be PM.

Never!

Must go back to computer, this iPad drives me crazy.

Anya, I agree with adopting a lesser role.

Yes I also agree on a lesser role! Blimey ladies!

Cor Blimey even!

We haven't had a European war, or been under the threat of invasion since the end of WW2. Yes our armed forces have been involved in foreign wars, for good and bad, and we've had enormous trouble in NI, and had very nasty flare ups, which will no doubt continue to plague us, but on a day to day basis we have been at peace without the fear of of a foreign power landing by sea or air to overpower and subjugate us, as happened in WW2 in continental Europe, and from which we escaped by the skin of our teeth.
The unions clearly want to keep Trident because the loss of it would cause a lot of unemployment! Principles do tend to go out of the window when peoples livelihoods are at stake, particularly as in this case you wouldn't have anyone to blame, the moral high ground can be a cold and lonely place!! I want to keep Trident because I truly believe that a nuclear deterrent is what helps keep the peace. Anyone who attacks us will know that even if we were obliterated that there is a submarine far enough away from these shores that will reply in kind. Imo that would almost certainly concentrate the mind of a would be assailant. Scandinavian countries, bearing in mind their close proximity to us, almost certainly benefit from our defence arrangement. If they were attacked it would undoubtedly affect us and we would react accordingly, ditto the low countries who are equally protected and therefore don't need their own weapons.

Once these weapons are used the idea of "retaliation" is meaningless - the only object, as far as I can see, is the MAD principle.

I am wholeheartedly in favour of scrapping Trident - it does not have the potential to make us safe, but only to waste money in a time of trouble for many poor people.

The threat that we now face is terrorism and Trident has no role to play in that.

The threat that we now face is terrorism and Trident has no role to play in that.

That is shortsighted.

I am wholeheartedly in favour of scrapping Trident - it does not have the potential to make us safe

It is making us safer right now, and has done for many years.

Agree with nigglynellie post.

Anya, North Korea would definitely care.

I struggle to understand how UK citizens, any of them, cant see that we have peace. It is obvious.