Do you think the UK should keep the trident ballistic missile or get beater nukes?

Answer 1

What is better?

Answer 2

First, you've got to consider which will benefit you the most. Do you need a land-launched nuclear weapon or a submarine-launched nuclear weapon. As of right now only four Royal Navy submarines have the capability to carry and launch a Trident Ballistic Missiles while a land-launched nuclear weapon can be launched from just about anywhere.

We must also consider who the United Kingdom would like to use said weapons against. If you're attacking a nation or area that does not have the capability to detect and destroy an incoming nuclear warhead, then you might as well use the land-launched variety.

On the other hand, if you need to get in close to an area in order to cripple the enemy's reaction time and ability to destroy the nuclear warhead in the air, then you'll want a sub-launched or vehicle-launched ballistic missile.

It really is a question of what you need. In today's world who knows what's going to be around the corner. Nevertheless, a good assortment of different types of nuclear weapons would be the best thing to have.

Answer 3

While the UK has a nuclear deterrent, it must be good enough to do the job, no more and no less. Only specialist analysts can determine what it takes to do the job nowadays and whether Trident is up to it, but it's getting quite old now.

Answer 4

Keep what they have and build better nuks,and be ready to use them.