UK: Labour may rethink its position on replacing Trident - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/zf61.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21827278[/url] [quote]Labour says it may rethink its backing for like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. The coalition is split on the issue, with the Conservatives backing a straight £20bn replacement of Trident. The Lib Dems favour a cheaper option, with a study on possible alternatives due to be published in the summer. Labour says it would consider different options for the future if they provided better value for money while retaining for the UK a "credible" deterrent.[/quote]

This is all relative as we all know that the most destructive force on Earth is English Football Hooligans. And getting them will be is far cheaper than replacing Trident.

I don't really see the point in us even having nuclear weapons at the moment. We have enough allies that would back us up if anything went down anyway. There isn't much point in wasting £20bn on them when we need it for more important things right now.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yfXgu37iyI[/media] We cannot allow for a Doomsday Gap.

Out of everyone who could/would make a mess of the UK, which one would fear a nuclear responce? It's just more leftover empire bravado. Don't need it, let the squaddies keep their jobs

I'd scrap all our nuclear weapons if it were up to me but if we're going to keep them, Trident is absolute overkill and should have been shut down two decades ago. There is absolutely no need to have submarines armed with nuclear weapons constantly on alert sailing in secret locations 24/7. I understand why it was thought necessary to have such robust retaliation capability during the Cold War, but it's just bloated and a huge waste of money now.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;39960166]I don't really see the point in us even having nuclear weapons at the moment. We have enough allies that would back us up if anything went down anyway. There isn't much point in wasting £20bn on them when we need it for more important things right now.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they need nukes, but you don't always want to rely on other people for defense.

[QUOTE=jaredop;39960371]I'm not saying they need nukes, but you don't always want to rely on other people for defense.[/QUOTE] That is why I said at the moment. When we aren't down the financial shit-hole we can make defence a bigger priority but until then they should put it on the back burner.

As much as it pains me to admit it, the UK paradigm is no longer a strategic one, but a tactical one. The RAF does not have any long-rage bombers, doesn't even have Nimrods for maritime defense. The Royal Navy doesn't have carriers at the moment, not that is matters because the Fleet Air Arm has no fighters to launch. The Army is handing out redundancy letters like candy. The UK cannot project power as it once did. Perhaps they do not need nuclear weapons anymore.

Indeed. There are other military spending more important than the Trident or its successor. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE"]Obligatory Yes, Minister.[/URL]

I don't understand. Deter who. The US, China, and Russia could all destroy every other country over and over.

[QUOTE=Chrisordie;39960057]This is all relative as we all know that the most destructive force on Earth is English Football Hooligans. And getting them will be is far cheaper than replacing Trident.[/QUOTE] scrap trident, schedule Millwall away to Iran FC

Don't worry, I'm sure the 2 million unemployed can eat radioactive waste.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39960326]I'd scrap all our nuclear weapons if it were up to me but if we're going to keep them, Trident is absolute overkill and should have been shut down two decades ago. There is absolutely no need to have submarines armed with nuclear weapons constantly on alert sailing in secret locations 24/7. I understand why it was thought necessary to have such robust retaliation capability during the Cold War, but it's just bloated and a huge waste of money now.[/QUOTE] Don't you only have one running at a time? And that's pretty much your entire nuclear force? I don't see a problem with you guys having a few nuclear warheads, although it would be interesting if your country disarmed peacefully.