Should Britain spend £20 bn plus on upgrading her nuclear defence?

Answer 1

Given the number of American nuclear devices/warheads at the ready in your country, it might seem a waste of economic resources. At least the last count had it somewhere around 100-110. As allied nations, I would not believe that if the UK were threatened to the point of needing nuclear weapons, my country would withhold assistance. At least I hope we wouldn't.

Answer 2

No I don't think Britain should spend £20 bn plus upgrading on nuclear defence. I think the world would be better off if nuclear weapons weren't invented. Good question though.

Answer 3

Preamble: I am a UK voter.

The answer is NO.

Firstly, there are no conceivable circumstances in which the nuclear defences envisaged would be useful.

Secondly, it is likely that the plans contravene international agreements against nuclear proliferation.

Thirdly, the Ministry of Defence should not waste money on nuclear weapons when it cannot afford basics such as helicopters and body armour for troops.

Fourthly, Britain needs to spend all the money it can on non-military threats to UK security such as global warming. I include terrorism for these purposes as a non-military threat.

Fifthly, Trident was in effect paid for out of the windfall from North Sea Oil, instead of spending this money, as it should have been, on industrial regeneration. The money is gone. We don't have a similar windfall this time - on the contrary, we have impending financial problems such as the pensions crisis.

Sixtly, why should a nuclear deterrent cost £20 billion? Are North Korea, Pakistan, India or Iran paying anything like that?

Seventhly, a nuclear deterrent would compromise UK independence, for instance because it would rely on international satellite communications.

Are those enough reasons (there are more)? Surely more than enough.

Finally, I believe many senior people in the 1980s Ministry of Defence privately opposed Trident as useless. They were undermined by indentification of opposition to Trident with CND (to which I do not belong) and withthe interests of foreign powers, i.e. the Soviet Union and its allies, who were certainly no friends of us in the UK. I hope that this time the Government will listen to sensible arguments instead of biting off its nose to spite its face.

Answer 4

It already exists. Why upgrade it?
It (Trident) belongs to the Americans - the United Kingdom merely operates the delivery system. Why should we pay to upgrade the delivery system, why not the people who control, if or no, we can use it?
The cost is many tens of billions in excess of 20. That is just for upgrading Trident.
3 new submarines, infrastructure, security, maintenance over the extended life of the project, etc., etc., are already estimated in excess of 200 billion.
I have no grandchildren yet, but if I did their own children will end up paying for it.
It is useless.
No weapon of deterrence is useful unless you have the will to use it, and no sane man would.
There is no point in this debate. Government - in your name and mine - WILL upgrade this useless piece of ironmongery, just as they do everything else that they want to do.
The whole thing is a disgraceful sabre rattling exercise that we might as well accept now, because it won't change.

Answer 5

NO, if we did what would happen to the old stock of Nuke's. They would be decomissioned and end up being sold on the black market, and end up in some suitcase bomb strapped to some extremist with a cause, willing to blow up London. I for one think the biggest threat to world peace is how long before some third world nation with hate in there hearts gets hold on one of these weapons and whom will be the target!

Answer 6

The UK will have to fork over the cash if it wants to be a credible player in the world especially in the security council where all the big 5 has nukes even the french manage to maintain a nuke force so the UK will have to as well if only for national pride. You could save some cash by making your nuke force smaller perhaps SLBM's only.

Answer 7

The English should and heres why: Any threat is bad enough, not mention the London bombings(may the Almighty rest their souls), and the innocents lost then. But todays world is demanding all of us to recognize....
Bolster all of it, army all of it...The English have to build up the war-machine to have some sense of peace...its thier chioce and as an American...I say arm them up if you have to, aim them at anyone who even threatens you. Its the right of the English people to have them, and use them if they get attacked.
Good people, no matter how egotisical they get, deserve to defend themselves.

Answer 8

As we go to war, supposedly, and watch 1000's die, in the name of not wanting Nuclear arms to spread, our own upgrade simply says to other countries, Iranand Korea, for example, there are rules for us and rules for you. In short, we can have and you cannot.

No is the logical, intelligent and morally correct answer.

Answer 9

No.We should spend it on forcing the British public to worship a graven image of my mother!

Answer 10

What country would be willing to fight a nuclear war on your behalf?