This evening, the UK Parliament votes on whether or not to renew the Trident submarines which carry our "independent" nuclear deterrent. I personally think this is a TOTAL waste of money. Most nations don't have this. Are we really any safer? Personally I'd rather spend the money (£100 billion?) on things that help us with 21st century threats such as terrorism.
What amazes me is why so many in the UK parliament think this is "a good idea". Sorry, but we are in NATO and are very very unlikely to fire nuclear weapons. In my view, Trident should be phased out as soon as possible.
Sorry if this is political, but I hate the whole idea of the UK having nuclear weapons at all. Were these ever to be used, it would be the end of civilisation. We should be setting an example for others to follow. Please don't tell me Trident is a deterrent. It certainly is no deterrence against terrorism and never has been. If we are short of money then we should spend what we have prudently.
18 Jul 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Kind of agree Roger. But we need an incoming missile detection system though.
And knock them out before they have a chance.
Tony
>Personally I'd rather spend the money (£100 billion?)
Well Roger, it's £31bn over 30 years, a gnats whisker over 1bn a year, peanuts, and despite
this figure plastered over every news story about it you have missed it ?
And as for not having it, well after reading your comments this is the last straw.
I don't think I'll bother reading your blog ever again. Nice knowing you.
Intercontinental and submarine-based nuclear ballistic missiles are a DETERRENT when held by proven peace-loving countries like the U.S. and U.K.; especially now as nuclear equipped Russia has returned to Communism (and there's nuclear equipped Communist China to consider as well).
Then there are the Rogue States of Iran, and N. Korea who under the current U.S. Administration are being allowed (if not encouraged) to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
The U.K. (as far as I know) does not have land-based ICBM's, so submarine-based missiles are your only option, and must be maintained.
Why do you think N. Korea (backed by Iran and [arguably] China) are actively developing submarine-based medium range missiles, and at the same time the compact nuclear warheads these missiles will carry?
Let's say N. Korea or Iran parks a nuclear missile equipped submarine near your county. If you DO NOT have the capability to ERASE N. Korea from the face of the Earth, there is NOTHING for your country to do - but be held hostage by this threat.
Or perhaps you want the U.S. taxpayers to cover your butt instead? If so, your country is being irresponsible. By leaving he U.S. as your back-up you place the U.S. at risk too because you cannot act on your own.
This subject is orders of magnitude more important than your concern about enough money being spent to prevent terrorism within your country's borders.
Roger, I know you are old enough to remember the nuclear threat under the peak of the Cold War. But perhaps you didn't understand it - or perhaps you didn't experience it like I did during the Cuban Missile Crisis while I grew up in South Florida.
Regards, David WB4ONA
P.S., I hope you are feeling better these days. It is always a pleasure to see you post.
My point here is most nations do not have such a deterrent. We do not need this when there are better ways to spend our money. This is MY view and I respect the views of others to hold different views. Whether or not you chose to read this blog is entirely up to you. We live in a free country.
Post a Comment