Does Britain really need to spend £25billion on a nuclear submarine?

Question

I mean, how many battles are fought underwater these days?

I know it's meant to be a deterrent to terrorists, but didn't we already have nuclear weapons last year, when the bombs went off on the tubes? America's had nuclear weapons for DECADES, but that didn't stop the twin towers getting blown apart.

I'm only suggesting that using a weapon of mass destruction as a deterrent to those people who use small, target-specific weapons might not be the smartest of ideas.

Answer 1

How else are we going to protect our selves from underwater terrorists?

Had the twin towers been built underwater, then the submarine deterant would have paid off big time... builidng them on land was just plain short sightedness on the part of the City Planners if you ask me

Answer 2

I just heard about this. Britain should concentrate on funding anti-terrorist activities in regards to its military budget. A nuclear submarine isn't going to be very useful for fighting terrorism. The USA had nuclear submarines to counter the threat from the Soviet Union, but I don't see how they will affect the battle against terrorism either.

Answer 3

There is just something about high-ranking officials that makes them stop thinking clearly, once in office.

Answer 4

Oh so you guys waste money too? Hehehe, funny.....

But submarines are cool, I'd waste money on one if I had it.....

Answer 5

idk let me call them.
*calling Britain*
me: yes hello Britain....*continues talking*
*hangs up*


um they said they don't but just felt like spending a lot of money, very stupidly