[arista]

20 Billion Pounds
now North Korea if they did fire their Nukes it would be at
America.

So Its Not our problem
I asume the CopyCat Labour Party is the same
on this spending.


There is No Cold War now
North Korea is dead but does have Nuke weapons
is that fat kid leader Crazy?
could be ,
So let China take him out in covert fashion.



Sign Of The Times

[Livia]

When everyone else in the world disarms, then so should we. Peace through superior firepower.

[Niall]

As Livia said, to cut spending on such weapons whilst others have them would be a little bit stupid.

Ideally, I'd be saying that it's wrong for Britain to keep such horribly destructive weapons around but if we lose them then it removes a major defensive part of our military. Though I hope they're never used, I do hope they remain in place to act as a deterrent.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

When everyone else in the world disarms, then so should we. Peace through superior firepower.

No they will never all disarm
Iran does not take orders from Americans

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

No they will never all disarm
Iran does not take orders from Americans

No, they never will. Which is why we must have them too, sadly.

We should scrap the programme. Nuclear bombing the UK when we didn't have nukes would not provide the offenders with a Nuke-free consequence. America would provide us with a weapon for retaliation.

It would take a stupid country to bomb another - whether they have nuke's or not.

[arista]

PM David Cameron is live on SkyNewsHD
in Glasgow
talking about the Nukes


Also on BBC news now

[Lee.]

No, the money could be better spent elsewhere

[Nedusa]

First of all its not our Nuclear Deterrent its the US's , we have little control over it in real terms , the targeting and control and maintenace and upkeep are all supplied by the US. We are simply the UK part of the US's overall Trident system.

Personally for vast sums involved I would prefer to have a fully independent system one that is controlled by the UK Govt in every sense of the word.

So is the money we pay worth what we get in return........probably not !!!!!

Would I prefer not to have any deterrent or the current system then grudingly I would still prefer to have the current system than nothing, as more and more smaller states are eventually going to aquire Nuclear weapons and must know a much bigger stick exists should they ever be mad enough to try and use any form of Nuclear blackmail on the UK.

Originally Posted by Nedusa

First of all its not our Nuclear Deterrent its the US's , we have little control over it in real terms , the targeting and control and maintenace and upkeep are all supplied by the US. We are simply the UK part of the US's overall Trident system.

Personally for vast sums involved I would prefer to have a fully independent system one that is controlled by the UK Govt in every sense of the word.

So is the money we pay worth what we get in return........probably not !!!!!

Would I prefer not to have any deterrent or the current system then grudingly I would still prefer to have the current system than nothing, as more and more smaller states are eventually going to aquire Nuclear weapons and must know a much bigger stick exists should they ever be mad enough to try and use any form of Nuclear blackmail on the UK.

Which countries would be able to blackmail us with Nukes? The only country that could do that is the US, otherwise we'd have the complete backup of the American nuclear programme whenever a little despot wanted to try his luck. Don't forget France wouldn't necessarily be clear if a bomb went off here, and they have Nukes as well.

No one would threaten us if we got rid of trident.