Yes

It is too expensive and the money could be used in serving the nation rather than planning to destroy another

This is the only planet in the universe we know of where life exists. All species are therefore unique and should be safeguarded. Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy all life on earth, not just humans and can never be justified.

This is an outdated deterrent, most attacks/threats are coming from small/individual terrorist groups rather than nations that need to the threatened with being totally wiped out.

There are more crucial areas in society that require immediate attention/funding such as education and NHS etc.

The money would be better spent in helping other countries and ourselves, leading as example, to progress and forward develop as together nations and in doing so reduce the need for trident.

nuclear weapons are responsible for so much death and destruction of innocent civilians on a large scale who don't deserve to die. i am a pacifist so believe that disputes should be solved diplomatically to avoid adults and children getting prematurely killed by nuclear weapons

Nuclear Weapons are a dangerous tool that can mass exterminate humans. As such, I see no necessity to promote the use of this type of weapons.

Extremely expensive, ridiculously exaggerated, we don’t NEED this programme to survive. put the money into something more valuable.

Nuclear Weapons are no longer suitable for the vision of the UK and the future. The money could be used elsewhere.

Mutually assured destruction ensures that there is little to no chance that our country will ever have to use our nuclear weapons. We could abolish trident, and use the money that is spent on trident on more important issues such as the NHS, Schools, and dealing with the homelessness/poverty problem

Nuclear weapons are evil, they can kill millions of innocent people at the push of a button and acting as a "deterrent" is a poor excuse for holding onto weapons of mass destruction.

Rather than focusing on maintaining or building a nuclear arsenal, the uk should set an example of de-nuclearisation with an emphasis on encouraging international peace.

Slowly phasing out nuclear weapons is a simple way to ensure that humanity does not destroy our entire planet.

They should not renew the trident nuclear weapons program purely due to the fact with other countries that the United Kingdom has tensions with, e.g Russia we should have major firepower in our hands as well so we don't get obliterated within a week.

Useless as a deterrent; very expensive; power corrupts and politicians can not be trusted to remain rational

The more countries with it the more overall risk there is. Nuclear should be an option for energy only until we can find a better and cleaner way to produce it.

MAD is already confirmed on the nuclear weapons provided. If any country used them now it would potentially end humanity. If key superpowers were attacked (such as the us) the damage to the global economy would be massive

Nuclear weapons are an extreme reaction to any situation that will likely only cause more damage and escalate the situatuon

in the event of nuclear war, it doesn't matter who has the nuclear weapons since we will all die anyway

only two opposing countries need nuclear weapons for the threat of MAD too be their, and the funding should sent towards healthcare and education

I don't understand what the deterrent is, if a country launched a nuclear strike on us we would all be dead anyway

I agree with the following: 1. It is outrageously expensive. 2. Do we seriously intend using it at any point, if provoked by the likes of Putin for example? 3. How do other powerful nations survive without one? Germany, Italy, Japan? Why don't they need nuclear weapons? 4. Why cannot older people in the UK come to terms with the fact that the UK is no longer anything more than a medium-sized power? It isn't 1900 any more. If the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese want to play with dangerous toys, tell them not to, then get out of the way.

Nuclear arms are a worst-case deterrent - putting funds to better use in education and supporting the citizens of the UK would go much further towards avoiding aggression from others than threatening them with annihilation.

If you have 10 nukes but it only takes 8 to annihilate the enemy, what are the other 2 for? It isn't deterrence because the first 8 take care of that. So besides **** waving, its better to reduce the world's overall count, where possible, while maintaining a strategic reserve at the most MINIMUM count FEASIBLE. There is not a reason in the world to increase the total number of world warheads when it is already a ridiculous overkill resting in silos worldwide.

The reason is that we have enough already against other countries. Considering we have the USA and France plus other America controlled weapons in other NATO countries amd the inability of Russia, i believe we are safe.

With Trident, we are operating a ticking time bomb on the end of the world. No matter what, sending out a missile won't end well.

First of all it’s way too dangerous and we all just need to be nice without resorting to violence. It’s also bad for the environment.

The only way to stop nuclear catastrophe is for all countries to disarm their nuclear weapons. Deterrents don’t really exist.

If powerful countries are seen to be renewing nuclear weapons contracts, then this could incentivise other to do the same. Additionally, the Uk should take Switzerlands example and stay out of it.

You should support the Tridents nuclear weapons programme. It disuades other nuclear powers from using nukes and gives the UK a seat as one of the worlds nuclear powers. Hopefully nukes will never get used but in a nuclear war we will need all the nukes we have to blow the enemy to smithereens.

Despots such as Putin and Xi in China only respect strength. We must maintain a strong, unified front with our NATO allies. This involves contributing significantly to its military capability and deterrents.

China, Russia, North Korea are threats against the United Kingdom and world peace. We must continue our armoury to ensure they do not succeed in their violent wishes.

It is necessary to safeguard the democracy we live under. It saves lives of troops and prevents outbreak of wars.

Our government systems are slightly better than China and Russia and North Korea so you want your grandchildren to be under a fair government.

The entire point of having nuclear weapons is to prevent other countries from using them. Besides, we have numerous allies with nuclear warheads.

Nuclear weapons have an overall negative impact on the planet and population and should be removed and disassembled.

I do not see the reason to spend so much money to kill people when people are dying from hunger, disease and the world's injustice anyway.

The sheer dangers and horrors of nuclear warfare are so clear that the Trident Programme should not continue

Nuclear weapons use is self destruction as they cannot be used without confirming retaliation. If we get bombed we get bombed, sending one back helps no one

it is a war crime and the weapons serve to harm innocent civilians more than the operating government bodies causing the trouble for our country, in an addition to this the mere ownership of nuclear weapons leads to increased tensions between countries both with and without and are more likely to cause a nuclear attack on us rather than prevent it thus ensuring mutual destruction rather than tension-full peace

I’m currently married to a man ( love of my life) and my mother is now retired MoD woman.
warmest regards John s Ballantyne x 😙
Dob march year 1980’s
Age currently the big four one # just / whoop&yay (minor lol 😜)

The Trident Nuclear programme should be phased out in line with peaceful missions to end global friction which would require the use of a nuclear weapon. We should use the phasing out period to work with countries across the globe to build firm relations in which we can all live peacefully together instead of worrying about the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Using nuclear weapons would result in enormous suffering, world war and likely the end of humanity. Trident is outrageously expensive and that money could be put to better use.

There is little proof that trident acts as a deterrent and its cost is astronomical in comparison to its benefits especially considering the much needed funding for other essential areas is so lacking. In addition blowing up other innocent people isn’t going to help anything.

The world is becoming a more unstable place, so nuclear weapons can act as an incentive for installment of peace and deterrence of attacks.

It's just like the dark forest theory waiting to happen. Someone will strike first, it's inevitable and then we're all doomed. Rather dismantle and reduce the risk of The Terminator

Providing any reason to keep it around, Removing the idea of using such weapons forces us to become more civil & practical with different methords with handling threats from outside. such as increasing our military.

The defence programme is there in case people are under threat of death, people in the country are guaranteed to die every day from a multitude of issues that can be helped with the redirecting of funding.

Why would you support something that is going to worsen are climate by a massive influx than it already is now

All countries should disarm nuclear weapons, the UK is already protected by NATO and frankly doesn't need weapons of its own