Nuclear deterrent: Trident
#1
Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Does the UK really need a nuclear deterrent? In the age of austerity and guerrilla terrorism, I am finding the argument for the £100 BN Trident renewal increasingly flimsy. Is it purely a political obligation to NATO and the USA? What do you think on this issue?
#2
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Get rid. If the threat is Russia , then France also has a deterrent. Plus, if America is our friend, they have it in spades. Buy more cruise missiles and Nuc tip those and more helicopters that kill tanks.
Last edited by Yorkiechef; Apr 18th 2015 at 5:25 pm.
#4
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Britain having trident or Polaris never prevented WW3, USA having it prob did. Well done USA.....
#5
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
It's because a lot of people in Britain get a bit excited about the thought of Britain as a major military force. Absolute weirdos.
#6
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Actually UK is fifth biggest ass kickers in the whole wide universe
#7
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
No question, they can make some big bangs.....
I like the idea of removing it and the servicing of it from britains shores.
I like the idea of removing it and the servicing of it from britains shores.
#8
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
If it got cancelled just think of all the fat people weddings it would fund :@)
#9
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
I think they haven't needed nukes for a long time now,any wars now are going to be over resources,so the use of nukes seems highly unlikely these days.
Even in the days of the cold war I think it was highly unlikely anyone would have launched a nuke,it was more a battle of bluffs.
Even in the days of the cold war I think it was highly unlikely anyone would have launched a nuke,it was more a battle of bluffs.
#10
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
They probably don't need them, no country needs them, but as long as they exist, some countries will keep them around, only way to rid the world of them is to convince every country to keep promises and actually dispose of theirs which will never happen.
If the US and France have them, I'd think that would be sufficient, other countries know if they do something to the UK or Canada or anyone else, the US and France would likely intervene.
If the US and France have them, I'd think that would be sufficient, other countries know if they do something to the UK or Canada or anyone else, the US and France would likely intervene.
#11
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
They probably don't need them, no country needs them, but as long as they exist, some countries will keep them around, only way to rid the world of them is to convince every country to keep promises and actually dispose of theirs which will never happen.
If the US and France have them, I'd think that would be sufficient, other countries know if they do something to the UK or Canada or anyone else, the US and France would likely intervene.
If the US and France have them, I'd think that would be sufficient, other countries know if they do something to the UK or Canada or anyone else, the US and France would likely intervene.
Last edited by Oink; Apr 18th 2015 at 7:57 pm.
#15
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Given how quickly France have rolled over in previous conflicts it's probably safer if we have them rather than they.
I'm surprised people think the US would bail in and help us. They are usually late to any party trying to assess what is in it for them.
I'm surprised people think the US would bail in and help us. They are usually late to any party trying to assess what is in it for them.