Scrap Trident ICBM program?

Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2008
Posts
2,082
They say its going to cost £20 billion to replace our current feet of four Vanguard class ballistic missile subs by 2024. Some people say its a waste of money and should be used else were (health care, transport, broadband)

To put that figure into context, 'Big Brother’ I.D cards could costs us £20billion & next gen broadband could also cost £15-20 billion.

I support the UK's current stance on nuclear weapons & he's why.

Theorectically speaking if a WW3 were to occur, i'd sure want a plan B set in place. That plan being if this country was pushed to the absolute brink of collapse, with an opposing force surrounding us on all fronts (sea, land & air dominance) we could threaten their capital cities & key strategic locations with total destruction on a truly terrifying scale.

Now yes this sounds very hollywood but then im not talking about Iraq/Afgan 'conflicts'....Im talking about the kind of war that halts all economic concerns, the kind of war that makes a coutry pour all its man power & resources into creating a war machine, the kind of war that has the army knocking on your door for mandatory service.

When you look at it in that context you see the is UK is a very small island with limited resources immediatlely available to it.

I feel £20 billion every few decades (when compared with a plastic I.D card?) is a very small price to pay.
 
lol, mandatory service. Like that will ever happen in this country again.

Haha yeah - just round up all the chavs with guns and knives, and let them lose on the opposing forces beaches! Two things happen- the chavs take the country and we stop and win the war, or, the chavs get mowed down in a hail of gunfire.

WIN WIN!

Rich
 
I don't care if Trident costs 100 billion, we need it.

I can't understand people who advocate scrapping our last nuclear weapons in a world where nuclear proliferation is rife and tensions are rising.
 
I think it would be a big mistake to scrap our nuclear deterrent, as it's exactly that, a deterrent. People may say that the world is a safer place now and the likelihood for an all out war is almost non-existent, but you never know what may happen 10, 20 or even 50 years down the line. Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the Cold War and they may well be called upon to perform the same service again in the future. All these people who think the world is a lovey-dovey place need to be realistic and realise that it really isn't.
 
I don't care if Trident costs 100 billion, we need it.

I can't understand people who advocate scrapping our last nuclear weapons in a world where nuclear proliferation is rife and tensions are rising.

I agree, I mean look how much we waste on the NHS, and how much the NHS looses into the black hole it has, I mean I bet the money that goes missing from the NHS could pay for the new nuclear arms program

Stelly
 
Also was just wondering but have they also decided to put the new carriers on hold due to the current financial problems?

Stelly
 
I think it's essential we have the ultimate defense system because it is precisely that that maintains a degree of peace. It is the fear struck into opponents' minds of retaliation that prevents large-scale wars. In modern society where each country wishes not to impose large-scale warfare on their civilians and settlements, possessing powerful weapons is ideal ;).
 
HMS Queen Elizabeth is expected to enter service between 2014 and 2016, HMS Prince of Wales between 2016 and 2018 but the F-35 is also delayed by technical difficulties & budget overruns so its not such a bad thing. i.e using these super carriers with Harriers would be really poor.
 
I'd be more than happy to see it scraped. It's a pointless, out of date, status symbol. The country no more needs nuclear weapons than Germany, Australia, Japan or Canada does, ie we don't.

With the sale of Aldermaston last week I think we'll cease to be a nuclear power when the current system reaches end of life. I think that's more likely than remaining a nuclear power, with the system developed and supplied wholly by a foreign owned company!
 
I'd be more than happy to see it scraped. It's a pointless, out of date, status symbol. The country no more needs nuclear weapons than Germany, Australia, Japan or Canada does, ie we don't.

With the sale of Aldermaston last week I think we'll cease to be a nuclear power when the current system reaches end of life. I think that's more likely than remaining a nuclear power, with the system developed and supplied wholly by a foreign owned company!

Germany and Japan = not allowed under international treaty

Australia or Canada = can really not afford it...

well done

Stelly
 
I'd be more than happy to see it scraped. It's a pointless, out of date, status symbol. The country no more needs nuclear weapons than Germany, Australia, Japan or Canada does, ie we don't.

With the sale of Aldermaston last week I think we'll cease to be a nuclear power when the current system reaches end of life. I think that's more likely than remaining a nuclear power, with the system developed and supplied wholly by a foreign owned company!

And what happens if WW3 breaks out a year after it's scrapped and the other side has nukes?
 
I'll only ever support ICBM if I can ride one like in Dr Strangelove.

I like this plan, I must be allowed a cowboy hat too though. For the little it matters I'm about as happy spending £20 billion on nukes as I am about spending the same sort of sum on ID cards, that is to say, not very. Although at least one of the options might provide its mooted benefits.

we havent got enough nukes anyway

we should spend 20billion on missle defense


if we have a perfect defense the nukes wont get through, or atleast most of them,

Seems a shade pointless if you aren't stopping all of them, no? And it might not even be possible to create a system that should stop all nukes.
 
Back
Top Bottom