No doubt the new model will be 10 times more destructive. I just hope the Iraneans and N.Koreans do not start thinking they also are entitled to a deterrent. Only countries which are not threatened militarily have this right.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agrement the other countries undertook not to develop nuclear weapons and in exchange we undertook gradually to reduce our own, until they are eliminated completely. Fair is fair. But of course, we did not set a time for ourselves and there are stories that our representatives came out of the room with a smirk under their moustache.
Now some of those small countries are getting ideas of equal rights! All men are created equal !...., What next?
People do not seem to know their place any longer. Why, the other day a non-descript ex colonial approached to speak to me and did not even pull his forelock. Do you see my point?
2006-11-23 13:39:36 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
England is entitled to its Nuclear program in my opinion because it was a part of the Great three in WWII. I dislike Iran getting ahold of the nuke because of the numerous middle east wars and a country like that would not hesitate a first launch.
2006-11-23 13:57:33 · answer #1 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Britain should have a nuclear deterrent. The countries like Iran are the reason why the non-proliferation treaties have been set up.
The non-proliferation treaty is to stop countries obtaining the technologies to build them. Other treaties such as SALT cut weapons build-up.
Remember that its our nuclear deterrent and them of our allies that have kept freedom over the last 60 years!!!
2006-11-24 09:30:22 · answer #2 · answered by johnfromdon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the united kingdom could have maximum of this is nuclear armament in submarines.. So the trident software could be needed. Or a greater present day software which would be greater advantageous.. the united kingdom somewhat would not would desire to hassle on the subject of the U. S. & Russia, it somewhat is Iran, Korea, and any terrorist united states. i in my opinion does not disarm, however the liberals choose particularly everyone disarmed so in basic terms the terrorists could have hands.. the international will by no ability see finished nuclear disarmament till Jesus Christ comes back.. P
2016-10-13 00:14:09 · answer #3 · answered by fanelle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You heard incorrectly - they will not vote until next year. The government is going to produce a white paper with its preferred option, which is to renew it. But that £25 billion could buy so many more useful things. A lot of Labour MPs see this is as an opportunity to get rid of nuclear weapons but I don't know if there are enough of them.
2006-11-23 19:42:46 · answer #4 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only way to protect your country from agression- be it American or whatever- is to have a nuclear deterrent. The only language americans understand is a big bomb. Therefore the only way they will respect you is if you ALSO have got a big bomb.
Sorry but that's the reality. America has used the atom bomb on civilians twice already and the only way any country can protect itself is to also have the bomb.
2006-11-23 17:39:33 · answer #5 · answered by Not Ecky Boy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The British government has made a good decision for once
2006-11-24 03:16:34 · answer #6 · answered by HHH 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is true that Trident will be replaced but this will not happen until 2024.
2006-11-23 18:47:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are going to need it soon!!
2006-11-23 23:16:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
thats nice isnt it?
2006-11-23 13:41:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋