English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It puts the hairs up on the back of my neck to think we could be dropping the Trident updated defence system,to leave ourselves so vunreable is suicide surely,i feel this country would be safer and better off to keep it and upgrade,sleep well.

2007-03-14 01:47:00 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

28 answers

YES WE NEED TO UPGRADE, WE DONT WANT TO BE LIKE WE WERE BEFORE THE 2 WORLD WARS!! NO BULLETS OR GUNS ETC. WITH COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN AIMING FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS WE HAVE TO HAVE A NUCLEAR RESPONSE

2007-03-14 01:53:27 · answer #1 · answered by SCOTT B 2 · 4 0

Very interesting question.

If we look at today's threats we could argue that the greatest threat is 'stateless' i.e. terrorism. To fight that we need skilled and trained manpower and different types of equipment. We might be safer spending money on conventional forces. Like ships to defend our coasts.

Against this we have the perceived threat of a growing numbers of 'unpredicable' countries gaining nuclear weapons. 'unpredicable' because they do not share our 'values'. Even Russia shares our values to some extent.

We can not do both it seems.

So why Trident and why now?

Here I can only offer an opinion without any real facts to back it up.

Firstly Trident is mobile Submarine based it can be placed 'secretly' off the coasts of countries deemed hostile.

Secondly it is American and the technolgy is known to work.

Thirdly, employment (don't under estimate this as a 'chip')

Fourth, there is the 'message' we can send, we will negotiate 'away' our nuclear deterrent but not in a unillateral way.

Fifth, at the end of the day USA and UK need to stay close, we can't 'trust ' anyone else after the mess in Iraq.

Sixth, we may be able to sustain more of our conventional forces if we become part of America's space defense plans.
which will involve Poland or another East European country. UK needs to be involved to 'retain influence' on USA if you think we have any that is.

Seventh, there is a good chance there is a secret agreement involved made by TB with GWB in the heady days of their early sucesses and TB is seeking to keep his promise. So he must act now as he will be and Labour may be out of power when the deadline comes.

2007-03-19 19:21:59 · answer #2 · answered by noeusuperstate 6 · 0 0

Definitely yes.

The trouble with arguing this case is that the critics of Trident can simply say 'when have we needed it in the past 30 years?'. But the very nature of a nuclear deterent means it is working all the time and preventing other countries from getting agressive with Britain. We can't rely on another country to defend us, and no British PM would ever do that.

There are many people who dream of living in a world where we can skip across buttercup sprinkled fields, with weapons banished to history, and everybody loves everybody else. But those people are living in a dream. We can't turn the clock back and 'un-invent' the nuclear weapon, and now that it exists we need to have it to prevent it being used. That's a plain and simple, yet uncomfortable, fact.

2007-03-14 10:29:46 · answer #3 · answered by CTU 3 · 2 0

Im quite vocal about being anti-war. I think nuclear weapons are terrifying. Luckily, so do most people. I hate that they exist and I would do away with them all if I could, but they are a great deterent. The threat of the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D) has stopped nuclear powers from attacking each other, where perhaps they would have if such destructive weapons were not available. Since WWII ended with the first use of these massively destructive bombs no major powers have clashed in the ways they did in WWI & WWII, despite massive political tensions and 'cold' wars- the history of nukes as a deterent clearly speaks for itself. As much as I'd like it if every country in the world would agree to get rid of their nuclear stockpile, or stop developing nuclear technology, the threat of irrational extremists, or states that dont respect and value the lives of their own people, getting their hands on these weapons is great. M.A.D. may well become obsolete as a deterent as a result. However, allowing our nuclear ability to rot and become obsolete ENSURES that it will. Just because people dont see us nuking the middle east does not mean that nuclear weapons are not doing their job.

2007-03-14 16:24:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

At this precise moment in time, a submarine based offensive nuclear weapon platform is unnecessary. However, trident will last for another 10+ years, and it's replacement will probably last until 2050 and beyond.

Now, whilst we will all be dead by then because of global warming, we don't know what the political status will be, so I'd say we'd better be prepared.

Yes to Trident, yes to Trident2!!

2007-03-14 08:52:17 · answer #5 · answered by mark 7 · 2 1

If the Government admits to 20 billion as the cost of updating Trident we can be sure it will be five or six times that amount, they are always hopelessly wrong on their costings and we are the ones that are expected to pick up the bill.No doubt the weaponry will come from America and we can expect them to be behind the push to get us to update.

2007-03-18 13:38:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes. Although its an obscene amount of money,several countries that have nuclear weapons or are trying to acquire them are in regions where instability may increase. Right now there isn't a country which has a nuclear capacity and the desire to threaten us - but countries' intentions can change quickly - more quickly than we could re-acquire a nuclear capability if we allow it to lapse.
We must take the decision now.

2007-03-14 09:14:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

We attacked Iraq cos we thought they had WMD which means that WMD's are not a deterrent but a reason to attack. I think Trident should be kept. No one will know when it no longer works as its under water. 20 Billion is to much it could be used for better things

2007-03-19 16:39:18 · answer #8 · answered by chris h 3 · 1 0

It would make more sense in spending that money on the rest of the military. Yes its great to have the best missiles behind you but what we really need is new equipment for our soldiers in the middle east, we could easily expand our military with that sort of money. Our soldiers are having hospitals closed down, outdated equipment and poor living conditions in a number of its bases. The infantry is still the key to winning the battle in the middle east and having the best army is imperative over have the best nukes. Iraqis want to see progress not more destruction.

2007-03-14 09:07:37 · answer #9 · answered by Gaz 3 · 1 2

If you have a deterrent then it should be the best it can be. It needs upgrading. Defence is the 1st priority because without it there would be no country.

2007-03-14 08:52:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers