That may well be true. But do we need more options? The original question was, do we not have enough options already to do sufficient damage to have a deterrent effect? And if we don't now, at what point will be? Do we just renew our nuclear spend ad infinitum? Does there come a time when we have enough? If we buy the submarines, would we say "we've done it now. We don't need anything else for 15 years?" I doubt it. How do we or you weigh nuclear weapon spend against other societal investments when financial resources are finite? Does military spending come first because there's no country to build hospitals in if it's not properly defended? Or does military spend come last because a country without hospitals isn't worth defending? It seems to me that with the weapons we have and the collective will of our existing allies, uncertain that we need to spend even more at a time when we have huge infrastructure needs that require investment.

Edited by sydtheeagle (30 Sep 2015 4.18pm)

Options to do what? Only five countries in the world acknowledge having nuclear weapons. Does that mean the other two hundred or so are in some sort of danger? Of course not. To renew Trident cost 100 billion pounds. To spend that sort of money would be insane when it could build houses, schools, hospitals, railways, roads etc.

Again, I strongly urge you to give this a watch Jamie. I think you'd really appreciate it and it challenges any kind of idea that what humans are doing to animals is benevolent: [Link]

Actually it doesn't. There are inherent problems with submarine based deterrents, not least the fact we'd only ever have two submarines at sea (and often one).

Trident submarines operate by sitting at the bottom of the ocean in range of a target nation for several months at a time, during which they remain in complete radio silence (they only monitor communications, they do not broadcast). As such, you can't really change targets, without giving away your location to the enemy, because that requires transmission and receipt of signals.

When Trident goes to sea, not even the crew or command base, will know where it will be located or its targets. Its utterly vital for Trident submarines to never be detected, because they'd be easy prey for destroyers and hunter-killer submarines because they won't have the Royal Navy to protect them.

The US don't operate a singular nuclear system (they have I think four different nuclear options at any given time). We however only have the missiles on two submarines.

Targets are usually programmed into missiles when they are in port (and there are always at least two Trident submarines docked, and one to two on patrol). In theory targets could be retargeted remotely, but that would mean not verifying the transmissions of data and verifying back with command (typically both command and the submarine will need to verify).

They incidently rotated targets in order to prevent the soviet being able to determine where the missiles would probably hit, and thus intercept them.

Part of the point of Trident, is that even if you hijacked the submarine, you couldn't launch or retarget the missiles (Only the PM or depuities can issue an order to launch, the commander has a locked safe which as a final fall back contains either a launch or no launch command, so that even if all communications along with the PM and nuclear deputies are lost, the UK can still retaliate

So whilst Submarines seem more flexible, they aren't. The UK system doesn't work like the US one. No one on the submarine has the capacity to target or order the launch of missiles (the commander doesn't have a launch code or even knowledge of where the missiles are targeted).

But the threat today is surely radical groups rather than nations? And whatever else is needed to defend against them, it's not nuclear weaponry. We're not going to drop nukes on ISIS (if we could find where to drop them first) and possession of Nukes will do little to avert catastrophes like 9/11. In my view, nukes were relevant in a bygone age.

I would say the threat of a inter-nation "World War" has receded and whilst, yes, there's always a North Korea to prove the rule, does anyone really believe that particular "threat" will be curtailed by Britain's fleet of Tridents? If there is a World War, it won't be led by us and it likely won't be decided by our arsenal. We're already a near irrelevance in terms of real global influence so why be a heavily-armed irrelevance? Now that the world no longer looks to Britain for military leadership, why not take advantage of that fact and invest in the fabric of society instead?

I think the point is that we need to look at what we are (as a nation) and what we can potentially be. What we want to be good at. How we want our people to live. What role we can play in the world. I absolutely agree that we need to be safe and we need to have a functioning military which requires respect, support, and investment but I do not believe that millions spunked on a largely redundant nuclear system replicated anyway by our wealthier allies is a wise investment in present times. Even if I were to agree to invest those billions in the military, I suspect it could be spent on better things than Trident. It's a resounding "no" from me.

I suppose it really boils down to a question of "who owns the Labour Party"? You could argue that Blair took steps that won elections, but with a party that didn't much resemble Labour. That being the case, the question becomes the degree to which Labour members want to compromise their values to get elected. As Corbyn was chosen leader by the entire party, I thinks it's probably fair to conclude that if nothing else, he's delivering what the party has asked for...electable or not.

One interesting thing will be, if Corbyn proves popular and does appear to be getting traction with voters (whether or not it's a big IF is irrelevant. Let's just imagine that does happen), how far will he drag the Tories to the left (just as Thatcher effectively dragged Labour to the right?) At the end of the day, most political animals revert to vote-winning compromises when it comes down to it so it may yet be that, elected or not, Corbyn has some impact on the line of direction of British politics.

Edited by sydtheeagle (30 Sep 2015 4.03pm)