Time to scrap Trident.
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
Sponsored Links
As the americans pay for a chunk of Trident, it's not solely our decision to drop it.
As the americans make chunks of the system, it would take some "negotiation" for us to stop buying from them.
Maintaining Trident keeps a certain skill-set of people employed. Once you lose those people, you lose them for good (as good as).
Aside from Trident, that skill-set maintains (in part) our ability to deliver a technically-advanced arms trade, to willing customers. Good for balance of payments.
If foreign relations significantly deteriorated, we would still have the wherewithall to arm and defend ourselves; reliance on bought-in defence systems would be shaky ground. What about if the vendor remotely switched your missiles off?
(I was told that the US government props up its car industry, in part to maintain home-grown ability to produce military vehicles and hardware, should the need ever arise. Don't know how true that is, though).
As the americans make chunks of the system, it would take some "negotiation" for us to stop buying from them.
Maintaining Trident keeps a certain skill-set of people employed. Once you lose those people, you lose them for good (as good as).
Aside from Trident, that skill-set maintains (in part) our ability to deliver a technically-advanced arms trade, to willing customers. Good for balance of payments.
If foreign relations significantly deteriorated, we would still have the wherewithall to arm and defend ourselves; reliance on bought-in defence systems would be shaky ground. What about if the vendor remotely switched your missiles off?
(I was told that the US government props up its car industry, in part to maintain home-grown ability to produce military vehicles and hardware, should the need ever arise. Don't know how true that is, though).
The two countries with nuclear arms haven't been nuked either, so your statement proves nothing.
No it doesn't. It was coined centuries ago to differentiate our island from 'Little Britain', ie, Brittany.
Sponsored Links
Slightly naive argument. Milton Keynes doesn't have nuclear arms and they haven't been nuked yet either.
Don't they, are you sure about that?
Anyway, they could always rob some off wimbledon.
It proves that two countries are billions £££.. poorer than the others.
Or buy out Sellafield, rebrand it, take their identity and then call them selves MK Fielders : and use the core they have purloined to make nuclear weapons at a huge profit, while Sellafield locals have to to start out from scratch with a coal fire to heat up the kettle.
The comments about Germany , both east and west are interesting. As has been pointed out neither have had their own weapons and the excepted logic is the US deterent has kept the west safe and by continuation Russia's arsenal kept the east safe from US attack. Following this logic that with both sides similarly armed prevents a possible military situation or nuclear strike does the logic still hold with regards to say an Iranian nuclear program? Should the world stand back and let them arm themselves to make the world a safer place because that's the argument for a deterrent
One thing that is slightly confusing is the whole replacement for trident argument. Does it actually need replacing with a complete new system or could it's life be extended at a fraction of the cost considering the missiles would still do their job even if that job will never be performed?
One thing that is slightly confusing is the whole replacement for trident argument. Does it actually need replacing with a complete new system or could it's life be extended at a fraction of the cost considering the missiles would still do their job even if that job will never be performed?
Sounds wonderful, imagine a world where any mad mullah (which is all of them) could get their hands on the nuclear trigger.
No ta.
No ta.
Iran is quite different from the current members of the 'nuclear club' (with the possible exception of Pakistan). Like most middle eastern countries, they are completely mad and, should they possess nuclear weapons, no-one would be safe for the simple reason that their mentality is such that the death of their enemies outweighs their own obliteration. They're each going to be rewarded with 70 virgins anyway.
As for replacement of Trident, I tend to agree. The present Trident missiles are accurate enough and have sufficient range for their purpose; the present missile submarines are sufficiently quiet and difficult to detect. So I agree that, as long as the system can be maintained at its current effectiveness, it need not be replaced. What I don't know is whether it is capable of being maintained for a length of time sufficient to develop a replacement.
Haven't read the whole thread but you guys need to get with the times, triumph haven't made the trident for years.
Ha ha , agreed there are some that could be considered unsuitable and I'd rather they didn't have the bomb , rather I was just pointing out the flaws in the argument. Unnerving really when one thinks that we are being largely " protected" by the nuclear arsenal of a country that is the only country on earth to have used nuclear weapons in anger , has invaded several other countries and by its own admission has caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis by its actions. The bad guys must be really bad.
- Joined
- 15 May 2008
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 109
- Country
Why don't they divide the £100 billion by the number of people in the UK and let every one defend themselves.
Sponsored Links
