Should the UK renew its Trident nuclear weapons programme?

Expand on it and possibly reintroduce Nuclear Bombers

Replace trident with non-nuclear frigates and stay out of foreign wars (except [hypothetical] world wars)

Yes, nuclear deterrence is key to are survival but only in retaliatory strikes, we also should invest in our own Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile system rather then relying solely on US Trident Launch Systems

Yes but reduce the funding

Yes but only if it’s needed for certain extreme cases of threats

As a defensive purpose

Yes but until discussions with the rest of the world and all agree to sign where it is illegal to produce, own, use etc and all are destroyed

I think we should try and not use it and not upgrade it anymore so they should leave it how it is and not spend much more money on it unless totally necessary

remove the funding from nuclear weapons and add most of it to the military

I don’t understand the question

The UK needs to increase its overall military spending, however a more basic nuclear deterrent should be adopted to increase the proportion of funds made available for the type of combative weaponry that is proving more relevant in current conflicts. Furthermore, there should be a focus on improving the targeting and cost-effectiveness of military spending to ensure better use of funds.

Focus on other needs, but ensure there is protection, perhaps in other ways. We should encourage other countries to dismantle such systems, but not lose all ability to respond to nuclear attacks.

Yes and upgrade the programme, whilst moving it's location from Scotland. If Scotland wish for their "own programme" they could lease or buy the existing facilities

The UK should move it down from Scotland and review it not increasing it but but decreasing it if the major nuclear player I.e. USA Russia China India France Pakistan Israel also accept to begin getting rid of nukes. Alternatively, if everyone agrees to do something about nuclear weapons we could give them over to the UN to only be used in dire situations to do with extraterrestrial circumstances.

put a nuke under every population centre, if we fire one one they all go off. We’re done if we fire one anyway, may as well have a decent incentive to eliminate nukes

The UK should encourage other countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons however with the current climate, it makes sense why they keep it. Though the UK could lead by example; disarmament won’t happen if other countries feel threatened.

Yes, but more on the defense side. We want to be able to protect ourselves. As well as how to reduce radiation during and after such event, if ever occur.

There will never be true peace so there should be protection, but there should not be the promotion or excess money given to a nuke programme when the nation is suffering

Stricter military rules and weaponry only to be used in case of threats, but do not renew nuclear weaponry.

Yes eventually, after they've successfully used the funds on health, education and welfare initiatives.

It depends on if it's an effective deterrent. If it's not then encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons programme

Yes but only as a deterrent, and the UK should encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapon programmes

No, we can't launch without US consent. End it, start our own independent programme but keep it small scale.

i personally don't agree with war and the costs could go to more important things but i understand we need to protect our country too.

No, however Putin Jong Un and DJT worry me deeply. How long will it take to need renewal? More weapons means more chance of ww3, how will technology and AI affect nuclear?

No, temporarily maintain minimum nuclear deterrent until we achieve multilateral nuclear disarmament

I believe dismantling nuclear arms in current times to be suicidal especially for a big world player, however upgrading the system and moving into England rather than Scotland (incase they go for independence) would give us better control

No, divert funds towards health, education, and public services, and also encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons

NO
as long as we have a "DIVERSE" nation on a small island giving power to religious extremists would be A DANGEROUS idea.

I'm a firm believer in THE THREAT OF ONE SWORD KEEPS ANOTHER IN IT'S SHEETH.

ARM your LAW ABIDING citizens and crime stops being a problem.

also hate crime is a dumb phrase hate is not a crime it's a reaction to disgusting realities of humanity

we can't love things that cause harm to humanity.

Nuclear deterrence are essential but should not detract from funding that would be used for citizen welfare

Yes, but take a leading role in campaigning for all countries to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapon programmes

I am conflicted - the thought of war in a society that should be and is to certain effects enlightened is not one I want to contemplate but, the alternative it like bringing a knife to a gun fight

It depends. They should have some form of weaponry in case of emergency or war, but not that much, and they should encourage other nations to remove weapons that can cause harm to other nations.

I would rather we didn't need it, but on a geopolitical stage where we are fading into irrelevance, not renewing Trident would make us a military joke.

Better safe than sorry is true but I believe all nations should stop creating weapons such as these and just live in peace while working together for a better future. Maybe one day we can all get rid of these weapons and the information needed to create them.

The idea of a nuclear war is rubbish, every side knows they can simply wipe each other out and whilst it help keeps the status quo it also serves as a means to halt progress between nations

Yes, however the funds must all be shared in a fair way considering statistics and the status of other countries and there own programmes for nuclear weapons.

There should be a balance between safety and being able to defend yourself, but also not causing aggression between countries.

Yes, otherwise the UK may become more of a target to superpowers such as Russia, China and North Korea if a war ever erpupted.

No, the UK should try to encourage other nations to gradually reduce their nuclear weapons programs and we should divert the funds into health, education and welfare.

No, the threat from other countries would be worse. Keep the funding for missiles but allocate funding equally with health, education etc.

The UK should strengthen its nuclear deterrent and house US nuclear deterrent and use money from doing such to fund schools and hospitals

yes we should keep them. however to divert some of the funds into health, education and welfare initiatives

We need to be part of a collaborative programme with other like-minded countries so that no one country faces invasion alone.

yes but be will to give them up or reduce them as part of any arms reduction talks

Yes, as much as I hate the existence of nukes, they do exist. We can't disarm while there are hostile nations in the world and irrational forces like religion at play.

Maintain as a deterrent but not expand it

No, divert the finds into health, education and welfare initiatives and encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons program.

No, we should develop our own, independent deterrent.