Surely he wouldn't suggest it if he didn't think we need a deterrent.
2006-12-05 02:26:53 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Its what it is, a deterent...without it, others could start to think England would just sit there and take it....bullshit, build all the bombs you can, nuclear or not, its the right of the English people to have something done...even if it means arms race time. Look at russia and their apparent spy-network in Britain, I don't think the British dig that crap happeneing...nor would we - the US.
I stand with England in that she deserves whatever protection her people are acceptable with.
Salute to ALL Allied forces in harms way....thank you, and please stay safe.
2006-12-05 03:14:52 · answer #1 · answered by Diadem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Trident system would take about seventeen years to upgrade. Although we don't need it now, who is to say that we won't need it then. I don't believe that any right minded person who knows and understands human nature could compile a convincing argument against it unless they had the key to some new, more favourable technology. That is the reason Tony Blair, the Labour party and the Conservatives all voted "yes".
The human population is ever rising. The earth's natural resources are ever dwindling. There may come a time when the 'have not's' will look across the fence at the 'have's' and, like rats on a sinking ship, will fight for the last remaining piece of habitable property. If that time comes I would protect my way of life at almost any cost.
While this all sounds implausible, it is a process that has repeated itself many times in human history, most of the time under the guise of religious motive.
What do you do in a palace in the desert when the oil runs out? They are only so many date's a person can eat or sell.
A big problem with nuclear weapons (apart from the obvious) is ,who decides which country gets them.
If however a more favourable deterrent was found I would fully support it as blowing up a city full of people is something that would be hard to live with and life after would never be the same.
To answer Lynda Lou's question - Nothing if we are all dead.
2006-12-05 11:01:08 · answer #2 · answered by BravoWon 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about £20 billion being spent over the next 17 years for starters? Blair promised "a wide-ranging public debate" on replacing Britain's nuclear deterrent; as usual we simply have what the Prime Minister intends to do.
Imagine what that £20billion could be spent on if that amount of cash is truly available! Hospitals, decent schools, scrapping students top up fees, thousands of newly qualified teaches and nurses, extra police to tackle crime, and drugs need to prevent cancer and other deadly diseases.
Some critics are unconvinced of the need to upgrade and think the PM is trying to force MP's into a quick decision before he leaves office.
2006-12-05 10:59:55 · answer #3 · answered by Rainman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your comment 'Surely he wouldn't suggest it if he didn't think we need a deterrent' indicates a touching faith in the prime minister's credibility on defence issues. He cried wolf on Saddam's WMD and is now expecting us to believe in some threat which nuclear weapons will be a defence against. The countries that would like to nuke us cannot, and those that can are our friends and will not.
The real security threat facing Britain now is not one that nuclear weapons will deter. We have the capacity to create 1000 Hiroshimas - to spend so much money on a capability which will never be used , replacing a system which we've never used, is simply immoral, but I expect no better from this sellout of a PM.
2006-12-05 10:42:25 · answer #4 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Basically nuclear weapons are a necassary evil. Nobody wants them but because everybody has them everybody needs them.
The main problem is public opinion on nuclear weapons and the cost to replace the nukes we already have.
2006-12-05 10:37:14 · answer #5 · answered by Flakey 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nothing wrong with wanting a good defensive measure in place.
What I find funny is that all these left wing treehuggers bleating about the upgrade would be the first to be shot if Britain was invaded.
Carefull what you wish for girls.
2006-12-05 10:37:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well he wants new ones but poor johnny foreigner gets condemned for thinking about building them for defence against us and the other bullies.
2006-12-05 18:23:13 · answer #7 · answered by toothache 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we need to launch nuclear missiles then it's already too late....
2006-12-05 10:39:05 · answer #8 · answered by Joseph Manners 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is the cost! What we could do with all those millions!
2006-12-05 10:35:39 · answer #9 · answered by Lynda Lou 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We haven't used the old ones yet!
2006-12-05 10:30:52 · answer #10 · answered by Reg Tedious 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋