Should the UK renew its Trident nuclear weapons programme?

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

nuke france

Yes, in order to maintain MAD and as deterrence in current state of division across multiple countries

As a defensive purpose

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

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

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

I don’t understand the question

no, no money should be focused on creating life ending machinery, but instead helping the environment.

Yes and if Scotland wants independence move the base from Scotland to somewhere in the North of England or find a compromise with Scotland to allow us to keep the land around trident or where we can maintain it within their land.

Yes but if Scotland dose get independence we should remove the base from Scotland or work with the Scottish government to allow us to keep it there but we will continue to fund it and they wont half to do anything.

We should keep Trident how it is currently but if Scotland wants independence then remove the base from Scotland or find a way to keep it in Scotland but allow all responsibility/upkeep of it to the UK

Yes but put more into science research and helping th a nations and just use it just in case of a last resort action.

The UK should keep it, but don't keep upgrading it, and should encourage other countries to stand down.

It's wise to keep up to date with what other countries are doing, including deterrents and defences.

Nuclear weapons should not be entrusted to individual governments, and placed under the command of the United Nations.

Yes, but all countries should be encouraged to reduce and ultimately dismantle their nuclear weapon programmes

Yes but downgrade facilities and reduce overall costs, allowing money to be directed into schools and healthcare

Spend less on Trident and invest in public services and try to agree a deal with the countries of Europe to create a nuclear arsenal that protects all European countries which all European countries put money towards relative to GDP

We should keep nuclear deterrents in case they are needed, but stop the production of said deterrents and redirect the funding into public services as they are more important

The UK should have its own, completely independent nuclear deterrent, completely separate from the US nuclear weapons industry.

Yes, do not use the nuclear deterrent for constituencies that vote against it, keep it for the other constituencies.

We should have our own independent deterrent where we own the technology rather than use an American system

Regardless, the UK should encourage countries to reduce their nuclear weapons. If they reject our pleas, then we will upgrade the programme.

No, but pretend we have. It remains a deterrent, as other countries think we have them, and we save tonne of money.

Yes but make a key foreign policy goal with ALL countries not only for international disarmament but worldwide military spending decreases.

Ideal World, No, Divert funds into health, education & welfare however yes because under current climate, we need a deterrent.

The Uk should be using independently developed weapons instead of ones bought from the united states

Yes but there should be a movement to reduce spending on it in the near future and to discourage the development of nuclear weapons globally.

No, but still invest in a non-retaliatory nuclear deterrent. Encourage all countries to dismantle nuclear weapon programmes and increase funds to health, education and welfare.

I am against the usage of nuclear weapons but if we’re to lose them I fear it puts us at risk against more threatening countries

Not if other countries aren’t dismantling theirs. I don’t agree with nuclear weapons but I think it’s a huge risk us not having them when other countries do

Short answer, No, but, all countries should in unison dismantle their programmes and safely disgard the reminents, if its there then its a danger to be used, there's better forms of arms that are better placed and set and not just stupid fear points.

Yes, but put most of the funding of the military kind into anti nuke technology and remote controlled technology's

I am undecided - ideally, no one would have nuclear weapons. However, they are a good deterrent to another world war. Part of me thinks that if other countries have them then we need them to protect ourselves, but realistically, if another country used one we would all die anyway.

No, the money is best used elsewhere (in education, healthcare etc.)and we should contribute to a global effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and stop weapons programs

It shouldn’t be a priority but also we need to maintain a certain level compared to our rival countries to ensure we have adequate protection and aren’t viewed as weak.

I believe unless every country in the world truly got rid of them including russia and north korea then no we should be keeping them as it is a deterent as we have no idea who or what may try and use theirs for what reasons they may be. So we need too be able to have them as a deterent of someone else using against us.

No, they should both divert the funds to welfare and education AND the encourage other countries to do the same.

Yes but should look for ways to work with other democratic nuclear powers to reduce costs and scale in long term

yes however lower the amount of money put into it for health care beacuse without the health care to support if there is a nuclear attack we’re finished

Put it in to defense and other weapons to help if war started and divert the funds into health, education, and welfare initiativesand the UK should encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapon programmes

The UK should keep a nuclear deterrent of some sorts. Should consider removing trident from Scotland if they don't want it there (also they can fund relocation)

Yes however actively encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons. Also Look into technology that disarms weapons instead of creating more devastating weapons.

No, It should be extended only until the wars in Ukraine/Russian and Israel/Gaza have reached their end and there’s no more conflict. Once the conflicts have ended Trident should be dismantled and the funding invested in other sectors.

I would ideally love to live in a nuclear free world but the truth is we have the weapons and it would be foolish to leave ourselves that vulnerable so it is a hard decision

we need to ensure our defense can match that of the rest of the Big country's as a deterrent. Its a scarry world out there,

Defence is obviously important but it should be relative to other important things such as health and policing and education

Yes but spend the minimum amount possible and then redirect funds to other areas within the military

Yes, but consider reduction in cost to divert to other sectors such as health and social care, education and welfare.

No, but only use in defence to avoid unnecessary war and we should encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapon programmes so no one has them.

We should encourage other countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons but given countries who have nuclear weapons at their disposals it is unrealistic to think this is feasible. I understand it is a deterrent which is important but I just don’t know if I agree it should be in place

Yes, to ensure global prowess in case of escalated emergency, but more nuclear funding should be taken to improve health, education, and welfare issues.

unfortunately due to the rest of the world it would be hard not to renew this but that doesn't mean I agree with it but understand the need for it whilst the rest of the world has it in place.

No, if the UK can encourage other countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons programmes. Yes, if not.

For the time being we unfortunately have to have some form of nuclear weapon programme but have to fight hard for us and other countries to dismantle such weapons.

Yes, but be working towards encouraging all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons programmes.

Remove it and stop meddling in politics of other countries. The programme would then not be needed. The funds could be diverted into much better causes that will actually help the British people and not just greedy corporations/ military industrial complex.

There should be a review of how likely nuclear war is every 5 years. If there is no likely threat, divert funding to sectors that need it more. Not necessarily remove nuclear weapons

I think money should be spent on better education and healthcare, stuff that benefits the general public and the rest should be spent on defence and partly to renew the trident nuclear weapons programme.

I love us to all dismantle them but that is not going to happen. How can you upgrade a nuke? Make it kill more people? Jesus Christ what world.

nut currently with the public service problems, more funding should go there but there should still be importance given to nuclear

No. I disagree fundamentally with the creation and use of nuclear weaponry, however without global disarmament it is too much of a risk to be left defenceless during multiple overseas wars.

The UK should be a strong advocate for denuclearisation across the world. However pragmatism dictates that this should be an incremental process. I would lower our nuclear capability and divert funds into domestic programs, however I would still maintain a proportion of it with a no first strike policy.

Encourage for it not to be renewed and do a vote on it, If most of the population say renew it, renew it, but just spend less on it

Bit of both so send it into the health education and welfare initiatives as well as renewing its Trident nuclear weapons.

If we cannot encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapon programmes (unlikely) then we should renew and upgrade ours.

Yes, but no if no other country had nuclear weapons. Only yes because the UK would be defenceless if a nuclear war broke out.

Trident should be reduced and conventional weapons focused on. Money could be better spent on investment too

No, and a large part of those funds from dismantling Trident should go towards purely defence-focused research such as missile defence systems.

Nuclear weapons should not exist anywhere but as long as others have them, we should have a way to protect ourselves - but having Nuclear weapons isn't necessarily protection from others with malicious intent

I would like to say no but in the current climate a deterrent may be needed. In an ideal world I would urge all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons programs but this is just not currently an option.

Yes, but in the long term the UK should look at reducing and removing it and encouraging global stability.

Yes, but develop a nuclear defence system using anti-ballistic missiles to replace it in the future.

No, I think Nato member states should not have their own nuclear weapons but that Nato should have a centralised nuclear arsenal ready in case of a nuclear attack on a member state. Each nato state should pay into this centralised arsenal and this would massive reduce unnecessary defence spending.

No and divert the funds into public services but also persuade other countries to dispose of their nuclear weapons

I don’t support the use of nuclear weapons, however I feel we are vulnerable if we do not have it. It should only be used in very very extreme circumstance

Yes, but have minimum nuclear deterrent (two submarines) until we acheive multilateral nuclear disarmament

I think the entire world should be sand from nuclear weapons as it’s just another way to not only destroy eachother but to destroy the world it’s self

Yes because it helps people not to attack but if we attack first we have nothing to stop other people from doing it to us

Yes, while arguing strongly for multi-lateral disarmament (i.e. the UK should encourage all countries to dismantle their nuclear weapon programmes and institute comprehensive monitoring process to ensure it is complied with)

Yes, but only because other countries have nuclear weapons programmes. More should be done to dismantle these so we can dismantle our own.

No. We need to look at a cheaper alternative and work towards all countries dismantling their nuclear weapons programs for everybody’s future.

Unfortunately yes we need it as our own defence insurance. But try to redirect some funding to healthcare.

No, but don’t tell anyone so we can don’t lose our threat. However the threat is all we need and they should never be used even in retaliation. Then push for dismantling for all countries and propose a joint nation nuclear weapon system for the use of cicumstance outside of national wars.

yes, but commit to nuclear disarmament simultaneously with other nuclear powers. only remove weapons in line with other willing nations.

Yes, but the UK should pursue a policy of nuclear disarmament. The Trident deterrent should only be maintained whilst the risk of nuclear warfare remains.

Again this is an issue, which I don't really know the correct answer. If pushed I would say divert the funds into health etc, but I know that this is a bit idealist, and open to criticism

The UK needs to look at other nuclear deterrents that maybe more efficient and better value for money.

No, because the UK doesn't control it, there should be an independent nuclear programme, independent of control from the US.

Yes but with other countries with similar weapons also dismantling them. Funds to be put back into health and education.

Yes, so long as other nations have nuclear weapons. However, open dialogue with all nations about collective disarmament.

Ideally Yes in the current environment. Unless if ALL countries unanimously agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons

Yes but only if there is a plan in place to phase it out in the long term, to allow locals to adjust to the changes.