Democracy strengthened

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?

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

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

Sorry not sure of your point rose

All countries go merrily on their way.

In your dreams only Whitewave.

No!!!! We have not had peace for a long time, we are constantly at war. The fact that we are sitting pretty looking out at the death and destruction we are wrecking on the world does NOT mean we are at peace. If having a nuclear weapon as a threat means we can merrily go on your way - is utter disgrace and shameful.

The scenario you envisage can never happen.

Thankfully, we will never have to worry about this ( getting rid of nuclear devices) because no government here will ever do it, not any of them, including Labour. Corbyn is in a dream world all of his own.

I said imagine a scenario, it could well happen.

We have had peace for a long time, nobody has invaded us or threatened us.As a country we have chosen to get involved in wars in other countries.There is a vast difference between choosing to get involved and fighting for our very existence.

And this group? Where are they?

That should read... It's not about using them etc.

stb remind me, when Britain was last at peace?

Imagine a scenario that a country or group within a country wants us to comply with something.... They threaten to use a nuclear device in London or Manchester unless we do what they want.We then can do nothing, as we don't have any nuclear weapons, they don't need to carry out the threat as we would have given in, we would have no choice.It's not about using them, but the threat of being able to use them.

The phrase "Trust in God but carry a big stick" comes to mind. Nobody would WANT to press the button and I don't believe anyone in their right mind would. However, this is a dangerous world, just by having the ability to retaliate if attacked by another country helps keep us safe. The question of how to deal with terrorists is, of course, a different matter.

Oh yes so Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Spain Italy Portugal, Australia, Canada, Japan, Brazil etc etc etc etc are all in imminent danger of annihilation?

<Banging head on wall>

It is very very far from being utterly useless

99% of its use is in defence

Defending the UK

We live in peace in the UK. Never forget that. Or ways in which it is achieved

Why do you have to speak in soundbites , Soontobe?
You don't explain what these pronouncements mean, or elaborate on them. They are not something set in stone and handed down on Mt Sinai.
And no, this is not a request for endless links, just a plea to explain what you mean.

The acronym MAD for mutually assured destruction is all too apposite.

Instead of talking about 'us' using them, think instead about our country being protected simply because we have them, nobody knows if we would use them or not, it's bluff, but it works.

Hardly insanity to have nuclear weapons ( you don't have tp press the button, but you never tell people publically that you won't).
Multilateral nuclear disarmament will never happen, therefore you have to be as well armed as the next guy.Not to have them ( when you have had them)
Would not be regarded globally as a ' kinder way of doing things' but more of a 'weaker way of doing things' thus leaving us open to any threats from countries who do have them.It's akin to saying no thanks, no guns, we will stick to our bows and arrows.

It is very very far from being utterly useless.

99% of its use is in defence.

Defending the UK.

We live in peace in the UK. Never forget that. Or ways in which it is achieved.

So the insanity if spending 100bn on something that is utterly useless is beyond comprehension. Just think what good could be done with that amount of money. Some of it must be used to reskill those workers whose jobs depend on it, but there would be masses left.
Just think we would be in budget surplus - GO would be euphoric

Not really considered that question.
If we have already been nuked would be 1 probably.
There are not many. The circumstances would have to be dire. 1/4 of our population already dead by one means or another, that sort of circumstance.

The question is worthy of a thread to itself, but I'd still like someone, anyone, who thinks we should keep trident, to answer that.

Exactly -JC simply recognises the truth that our nuclear weapons are "neither independent, plausibly or legally usable in the 21st century"