Should the UK renew its Trident nuclear weapons programme?

nuke france

Expand on it and possibly reintroduce Nuclear Bombers

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

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

I don’t understand the question

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.

No The money should be spent on conventional forces.

Mutually assured destruction is a necessary evil at this moment in time, but in future where possible all nuclear weapons should be disarmed and neutralised

Keep the ones we have but never use them. Don’t even threaten countries with them.

Direct every funding to the nuclear programme

yea but like don’t tell other people abt it

Yes, nuclear weapons should never be used, but disarming doesn't work and having them as a deterrent is better than not having them at all given the political climate

Keep renwewing as a deterrant and advacate for world disamnatlemnt of nucelar wepons

potentially

Only keep a few and divert The funds to health, education and welfare initiatives

Don’t no wot it is

Yes but only for use as a deterrent. There should be no more funding than required for the project.