Trident No Affordable

[Hopkirk]

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/trident-replacement-not-realistic

At last, a politician talking sense

[Gromit]

Trident will cost about £80billion over its lifetime.

It is a weapon designed to repel the soviet Union in the 1960s.

Our enemies 50 years later have changed, and a very costly weapon of this sort is a bad fit for our current needs.

Unfortunately the incredibly huge price means we have a Veto on the UN Security Council so we will always pay it, just so we can sit on the top table (and abstain everytime Israel goes on an invasion).

[jake-the-peg]

Quite Gromit

And to listen to some people you'd think that it's impossible to have nuclear weapons without Trident

[youngmafbog]

//designed to repel the soviet Union in the 1960s. //

And there will be no need to deter other rogue states in the next 20 years?

Of course we could 'say we are doing it' and then just plonk a couple of subs around the world. Should be much cheaper.

[jake-the-peg]

You really think Trident deters rogue states?

From doing what?

Hey mister terrorist don't bomb that plane or we'll nuke er...er..somewhere

Maybe it is a sucess and without it Al Qaeda would have invaded by now



do me a favour!

[DangerUXD]

well it might deter future rogues states that have nukes.

We do need something, can we not stick with the current system?

[LazyGun]

I have yet to see anyone making a strong case for the UK retaining a continually at-sea ICBM deterrent program.

It will not deter terrorists, now or in the future. The only conceivable use for it would be to attack another state - but can you ever imagine the UK acting unilaterally in that situation?

Its hugely expensive and now outmoded. The only people who really support it are the Royal Navy and it means, as someone else has already said, that we retain our permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Given the age of austerity and cuts in public spending, mothballing Trident could save some serious money....