BritInParis

If people think the US or France would risk a nuclear conflict to defend the UK then I'd like some of whatever you're drinking.

Only one country in recent times voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons after the US, the UK and Russia signed a treaty guaranteeing its sovereignty within its existing borders - Ukraine. Last time I looked it's not going well for them.

The world is a far more dangerous and unpredictable place then it was during the Cold War. Nuclear proliferation is growing not shrinking. Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea all have nuclear weapons and Russia is resurgent. A replacement for our current Trident-carrying submarines won't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. We can barely predict what geopolitical circumstances will find ourselves in 18 months' time let alone 15 years.

Shard

On that logic, Canada should be arming itself up "just in case".

Despite the number of Russians now living in London, Ukraine is a false comparison. Indeed even if the Ukraine possessed nukes, I can't see them being used for this particular boundary dispute.

The point is not should we relinquish all nuclear deterrent, but Trident itself. In desperate geopolitical circumstances, would Britain send subs over to N Korea or Pakistan any sooner than the USA? Seems unlikely.

BritInParis

The defence of Canada is much more closer aligned with the United States through NORAD and as such remains under its 'nuclear umbrella'. The same cannot be said for the UK or indeed the rest of Europe. A comparison between the threat posed to the UK and Canada is also unlikely to be equal given the disparity of the two countries as world powers.

Since 1945 nuclear weapons have only acted as a deterrent against the use of conventional forces rather than an offensive/defensive weapon. As such Ukraine wouldn't have needed to bomb Moscow as Russia is unlikely to have risked a nuclear confrontation in the first place over 'Novorossiya' by sending its troops into Ukraine.

In the UK's case we have Russian nuclear-capable bombers regularly circling our airspace, testing our defences.

To be replaced with what? Trident - and any successor submarine-based system - is the most efficient way of maintaining a continuous nuclear deterrent without making the UK itself a target for a nuclear 'first strike'. Any potential adversary planning to attack the UK knows that there is at least one British submarine at sea that could retaliate with at least 40 nuclear warheads at any target anywhere in the world.

Moreover the question of Trident plays into a larger question about the UK's place in the world. We hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council because we are one of five nations permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the NPT. If we unilaterally disarmed ourselves then we would no longer be able to justify this position and our influence on global affairs would shrink significantly. Some people may welcome this but I cannot say I am one of them.

Shard

A good response, but I remain unconvinced. Can you suggest a scenario that fits the emboldened bit above? A scenario where the USA or France would not be compelled to act, and that Britain would have an absolute uni-lateral need for nuclear attack capability.

colchar

The Vogons are in first place in those rankings.

BritInParis

No, I can't, as there's no realistic scenario where the UK would use its nuclear weapons in a unilateral offensive. Reread my last post. It's a nuclear deterrent. It's to prevent an aggressor from using either their own nuclear or conventional forces against the UK.

MarkG

Can you think of a scenario where the people of America would willingly trade their cities for London?

Jericho79

I also think it naive that people think the USA or France would willingly sacrifice their own cities/population by responding to an attack on the UK.

I'm quite happy with the UK having a nuclear deterrent. Whether we should be spending $100bn on it is another question entirely.

BritInParis

It should be noted that the £100 billion figure is reached by estimating the cost of the entire Trident replacement programme including the submarines, missiles and operating costs at 2012 prices over a 35 year period. This would be around £2.9 billion per year, roughly 10% of the total UK defence budget.

Whilst it is still isn't an inconsequential government spending for 2016 will be £746.6 billion meaning the annual cost to the Exchequer would be less than 0.4% of the total UK budget.

Shard

That's the whole point, nobody, except possibly a rogue terrorist group, is going to use these weapons.

Ben W Bell

Sir Humphrey: [talking about nuclear fallout shelters] Well, you have the weapons; you must have the shelters.
Hacker: I sometimes wonder why we need the weapons.
Sir Humphrey: Minister! You're not a unilateralist?
Hacker: I sometimes wonder, you know.
Sir Humphrey: Well, then, you must resign from the government!
Hacker: Ah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not that unilateralist! Anyway, the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they?
Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
Hacker: Well, the independent deterrent.
Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
Hacker: The French?! But that's astounding!
Sir Humphrey: Why?
Hacker: Well they're our allies, our partners.
Sir Humphrey: Well, they are now, but they've been our enemies for the most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb!
Hacker: If it's for the French, of course, that's different. Makes a lot of sense.
Sir Humphrey: Yes. Can't trust the Frogs.
Hacker: You can say that again!

Pizzawheel

I was about to like BritInParis's wel thought out points, but Ben trumped you. Sorry.

jimf

So the annual cost of trident replacement would be less that half of the UK overseas aid budget. The cost doesn't seem extravagant at all. The issue is really whether a trident replacement would be sufficient.

Putin has made the nuclear question even more complicated – and Trident may not be the answer | Paul Mason | Comment is free | The Guardian

Yorkiechef

The premis of NATO is that one member attacked all Members retaliate. We (UK) have no reason to keep it. Get more tank killing helicopters and hat would seriously worry Putin. He is as likely to attack with a full nuclear strike as we are, so why bother having it when the US and France both have it.

MarkG

So you really think that, if Putin was to attack London, Americans in New York and LA would be lining up demanding their government nuke Moscow?

Heck, he wouldn't even have to bother attacking London: Russians already seem to own half of it these days.

The real issue I see with Trident is that the government are preparing for being attacked by another organised national military, while their borders are open to anyone who wants to walk in. Most of those ISIS members from the 'migrant' boats will be in London in a few months. As is usual with the military, they're focused on fighting the last war.