If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
MPs getting jittery about Trident
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
There are some things which are always guaranteed to get Labour MPs excited. Hedge funds, offshore accounts, tax avoidance schemes... no wait, that's the wrong story... I'm talking about the nuclear weapons arsenal. Ah yes, a favourite topic on the Left, and increasingly a very worrying topic with what's going on in Iran. Aunty BBC reports: "The Commons defence committee is examining whether the UK should replace its Trident weapons system, which is expected to be obsolete by 2020. It is taking evidence from a range of experts about the type of threat the UK might face in 20 years' time."
Oh yes, and Tony Blair says he wants the "fullest debate" before any decision is taken. Which roughly translates as Blairspeak for "I've already made the decision that we're going to replace it with my US cronies, so to hell with what anyone else thinks". >> Details >>
Maybe the UK needs to replace its weapons arsenal. But there are two big problems. The first is the cost - around £20bn, say military estimates. Doesn't Britain have better things to spend that on right now? (they'll probably spend it on changing our road signs to kilometres as that Kinnock wally suggested a few weeks ago) And the second is the message it gives. How can we turn to Iran and say "you must not build nuclear weapons" when we're replacing ours? Won't we look like total hypocrites?
Does the UK need to replace its nuclear weapons? Do we need them to protect ourselves in the future? Or should the UK take a stand against nuclear arnament?
Oh yes, and Tony Blair says he wants the "fullest debate" before any decision is taken. Which roughly translates as Blairspeak for "I've already made the decision that we're going to replace it with my US cronies, so to hell with what anyone else thinks". >> Details >>
Maybe the UK needs to replace its weapons arsenal. But there are two big problems. The first is the cost - around £20bn, say military estimates. Doesn't Britain have better things to spend that on right now? (they'll probably spend it on changing our road signs to kilometres as that Kinnock wally suggested a few weeks ago) And the second is the message it gives. How can we turn to Iran and say "you must not build nuclear weapons" when we're replacing ours? Won't we look like total hypocrites?
Does the UK need to replace its nuclear weapons? Do we need them to protect ourselves in the future? Or should the UK take a stand against nuclear arnament?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
meaning those with nukes get to live a few weeks ...maybe months longer ...
so yes ...we realy need to spend those billions ...
or are we going to fight arabic heroes who ride white horses through the mountains and deserts with them?
i have absolutey no idea why this country needs to spend that much money on such weapons.
Unless we can find something else with quite as much punch.
Been watching soilent green?
Resource wars!
it enables those who have ...to live a few weeks or months longer ...at such a cost.
Seriously?
But seriously, i am of the school of thought that a country needs to be able to defend itself and during the Cold War, from Britains point of view, having nuclear weapons was not a benefit as it added to the chance of the end of the world, but it did grant Britian a chance to throw some weight around. Such as having a perminant member position on the UNSC and so forth.
But i can not see much point in spending on a Nuclear arsenal now. I mean, Iran will have their reactors bombed before they ever develop nuclear capacity, and we are not going to nuke Iran anyway. India and Pakistan and North Korea already have nukes so not much chance of doing anything there. So, if you want weapons, why not spend on conventional weapons, recruiting troops, building aircraft, carriers, tanks, guns, etc. Or, if you dont want weapons, spend on hospitals schools, reducing teen pregnancy, cheaper petrol, cheaper public transport and the like. Seems silly to me the current plans.
Since you cannot nuke terrorists (where do you drop the bombs, exactly?) the argument for a nuclear deterrent is very weak in the present circumstances.
To go back to NQA saying the French have it – well yeah; if India, China, Pakistan, Russia and whoever has got hold of some of the old Soviet stuff have it Britain needs it. We don’t particularly need the nuclear deterrent today – but will we in 10 years time? 25 years? If Iran got hold of a nuclear weapon would you be happy about Britain being nuclear free? It’s not about actually needing the weapon mostly, it’s about it elevating our position I guess - strengthening it with the knowledge that there is a nuclear deterrent there. And we could offset much of the cost by cancelling our EU membership – saving us billions of pounds.
Present circumstances have a habit of becoming past circumstances.
No, I would not be concerned about Iran getting their own nuke even if Britain had got rid of theirs. By far the most efficient form of defence is having a fair and balanced foreign policy in place.
Honestly do you believe that? If so I can sell you a map to Blackbeard's treasure at a cut price rate.
To be honest perhaps there is hypocrisy between me wanting the UK to have nuclear weapons for our defence and not wanting Iran to have them for exactly the same reason. But I'd rather be a hypocrite that see Tel Aviv (or London) be either a nuclear wasteland or blackmailed into submission.
As it turned out the other day London had provided Israel with plutonium that helped them developed their bomb. This was disclosed in the same week as the chimp signed a new nuclear deal with India and allowed them to keep their newly acquired nukes without so much as a word of protest.
And we have the fucking cheek to tell other nations whether they can develop their own nukes?
Why don't we make that judgement based on actions, not words, which is what really counts?
By happy coincidence the US, Britain and Israel have illegally invaded and/or bombed and astonishing number of sovereign nations in the last 4 decades or so.
Iran's count, in the meantime, is zero.
If there was ever a need of forcefully removing a nuclear arsenal from a nation, it's not the likes of Iran we should be looking at- it's rather closer to home.
Yes.
It's a bugger they were invented, but seeing as they have been, I'd rather this country have them than not. Hypocritical or not.
i think we should clean and polish the old ones a bit more often.
bit of WD40 here and there and maybe a regular coat of hammerite.
that way we save a mint and should india or america ever threaten to nuke us ...we might not be able to win but we sure as hell can burn plenty of them.
the reason israel and america and france etc ...have them in proffusion is ...
cos we have been running the show. simple innit.
we would like to maintain our lifestyle at the cost of ...theres.
thats how life unfolds.
if we give them up and tell everyone we love them ...we are even throwing our weapons into the sea cos we believe ...blahhhhh.
i'm amazed at how many obviously inteligent people in here ...believe that such things can happen ...be fashioned. they realy can't you know.
And some gaffer tape on the bits people don't notice.
Coz I didn't think there would be but then if there isn't, then why are the on about overhaulling the defense sytem?? Do they just mean the deployment mechanics and not the missiles themselves??
Submarines themselves will have a working life maximum cycle limit, beyond which it would be unsafe to continue to use them. Though that's probably measured in decades not years.
I'm not sure about the missiles themselves but I would imagine they will need upgrading soon too. They're getting quite old by now.
Not good.
Oh well, the old weapons spring clean time then. Fair enough.