Is this what you want. Trident Missiles and Vanguard Submarines?

Question

The cost of 48 Trident Missiles 16 for each of 4 Vanguard Submarines on 1996/97 prices =792 million pounds.
The cost of replacing 4 Vanguard Submarines 12.57 Billion Pounds over a thirty year period on 1996/97 prices
This is one paragraph from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. The same one that the West is trying to impose on North Korea, and Iran, have you heard any such deliberations against Israel.
Quote,‘Desiring to further the easing of International tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.’
Blair. has a Cold War past he'd prefer to forget. A member of the parliamentary section of the CND, he allowed his membership to lapse in the late 1980s -- Blair later attempted to obscure or, some mean critics would say, rewrite history. When challenged in the early 1990s, Blair first denied he was a CND member but then conceded he had been a member of an affiliated group in

Answer 1

It's about time the government practice what they preach. If they tell others they are not allowed Nuclear weapons then they should do the same. The U.K should set an example to the rest of the Nuclear powers by being the first to completely dis-arm.

Answer 2

I believe that an independent nuclear deterrent should form the backbone of UK defence.
The problem is not the British build submarines but the American built Trident missiles. These are far from independent and although paid for by the UK taxpayer can only be used with the permission of the Americans.
At $30m each, I believe that the funds should be invested in a truly independent deterrent or possibly a joint venture with France.
As the US is the only credible nuclear threat, it is ridiculous to have a deterrent that can be neutralised by that very aggressor.

Answer 3

My short answer is 'No' I don't want them.
I would be in favour of a nuclear deterrent if we really needed one. The truth is though, that we don't need one. Where is the enemy that it would deter? Islamic fundamentalists??
So what we have is a huge amount of tax payer's money being spent on armed forces and weaponry that cannot protect our borders from illegal immigrants or from drug smugglers.
You have to wonder if we really need the Royal Navy or Air Force any more.
It has become a case of 'I have a bigger gun than yours' So called national pride at huge cost, but no real use.
Our government is still locked in a cold war mentality.

Answer 4

Thats right, get rid of them, we don't need them. Iran and North Korea are safe and we should approach them with cap in hand and say sorry have our weapons. Hang on, hang on. North Korea and Iran can hardly be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, I would feel alot safer and Britian would remain alot safer if we had them. What happens if Iran or North Korea sends one over to us. What do we do, what is to deter them from doing that. Nuclear weapons are a clear deterent which sends a message to crazy islamic leaders that states 'don't mess with us'.
George is a silly fool, if he thinks we should get rid of the RAF and the Royal Navy too. Oh dear.

Answer 5

Of course we don't want them but we didn't want to go to war either. And after all, if we didn't buy American weapons they might not speak to us and that would be a severe blow to our pride. We could do a lot with the money but all PM's since 1951 have preferred to spend outrageous sums in order to preserve the illusion that America really gives a monkey's about what we think. And I think Japan, Switzerland and Sweden have done pretty well out of not having to buy arms. I wish we had a bit of their social and economic sense!

Answer 6

It should be about priorities of the people of our country, but we have no say in this so called democracy.
After we look after our pensioners and give then better than a decent life.
After we have made our NHS the best for all of our people.
After we have educated our youth and make all eduction free.
Then as an important but not the most important issue discuss the military budget.

Answer 7

I trust no-one.

We need to keep an arsenal of weapons,that will make our attackers reconsider their intentions.

The money spent on arms etc,rotates through the economy,it is not flushed down the drain.

Answer 8

You have heard the expression of bringing a knife to a gunfight!
Do you want our proud country to be at the mercy of foreign enemies who do have nuclear capability?
Even backward unstable countries like ,china,pakistan and india have said weapons.
At this stage not all foreign nations ahve the ability to attack our homeland but they are developing their capabilities.So correctly we should develop too and be one step ahead.
the expense involved is awesome but it must be recognised that the spending is not lost, much of it is ultimately recycled into our economy.
we treasue our values and would like to preserve them, there are others in this world that would like to remove them, it is our duty to provide the maximum deterrent to those who would wage war against us.

Answer 9

If Iran ,Korea etc etc has them we need them.

If your going to have a nuclear defence policy it has to be viable system.

Would you rather we rely on the French.

Answer 10

Unfortunately we need them. Any money spent on weapons is money well spent, in my estimation.

I wish we didn't need nuclear weapons, but the Japanese didn't have nuclear weapons and see what happened to THEM.

The meek, unfortunately, do NOT inherit the earth. I wish it were otherwise.