Can We Afford Trident?

[manrow]

Or maybe the question is - Can We afford Not To Buy IT?

With mega serious financial problems I would submit that we are a small nation who can no longer afford the luxury of our own independent nuclear deterrent. We need to admit that and spend the money elsewhere.

[Streetwalker]

No we cant afford Trident.The cold war is over we no longer need a nuclear deterent.

[Midas]

No we cant afford Trident.The cold war is over we no longer need a nuclear deterent.

Agreed 100%.

[Major Sinic]

No we cant afford Trident.The cold war is over we no longer need a nuclear deterent.

The Cold War may be over, but there are new potential and actual threats to world peace, in the form of N.Korea and Iran, to name the two most obvious. Whether we need to buy Trident for our own security is open to debate. Certainly we can't afford it.

[ryoden]

I personally don't see the point in it, the only reason to hang onto it is to fool ourselves into think we are still a world power, we arent. It's an unnecessary expense, there are already more than enough nukes with our allies to warrant keeping ours during a time of belt tightening. Later on when we have paid off all our debts and we feel the need to be able to have nukes again then we can always re-arm.

[soloman]

I personally don't see the point in it, the only reason to hang onto it is to fool ourselves into think we are still a world power, we arent. It's an unnecessary expense, there are already more than enough nukes with our allies to warrant keeping ours during a time of belt tightening. Later on when we have paid off all our debts and we feel the need to be able to have nukes again then we can always re-arm.

Heard nothing from the coalition on this. Is defence spending under review overall, which might include trident?

[AMGINGLES]

I don't want anymore disscussion on this , If we lose Trident we will be raped by china , the chinese soldiers will be here tomorow raping your children , no joke.

[AMGINGLES]

Major , North Korea got its reactor from the US North Korea’s Nukes: Paid For By The U.S. Government and Iran has does not have sufficiently enriched uranium to create nukes , the americans just want to invade , why should iran not have peaceful nuclear power?

Another step forward for the NWO world government , I bet if you are at war you wont worry anbout the bankers taking your pension , A war is like the globalists emptying the slot machine at the end of a days work.

[R Burgess]

I dont know much about Trident apart from what I read in this article BBC News - Trident missile factfile If your into missiles, they sound very impressive, 8 X the power of Hiroshima and accurate to a few feet. Unfortunally they are not made by us, the reserve stock is not under our control and by treaty as a condition of sale, since adopting the polaris misslie the USA, through Nato tells us when and where our government can deploy them. (The BBC does not tell you this.) This weapon system we pay for, may be brilliant, but evidentlly if ever there is a conflict of interest this system is not ours to use in our defence as we see fit.

Talk about a capatalist will sell you the rope to hang you with. In the current economic climate we are told that massive quatities £ $ and Euros are now held by countries that only a short time ago were enemies. It strikes me, they now have the the means to buy our defence companies with our own money.

[soloman]

I dont know much about Trident apart from what I read in this article BBC News - Trident missile factfile If your into missiles, they sound very impressive, 8 X the power of Hiroshima and accurate to a few feet. Unfortunally they are not made by us, the reserve stock is not under our control and by treaty as a condition of sale, since adopting the polaris misslie the USA, through Nato tells us when and where our government can deploy them. (The BBC does not tell you this.) This weapon system we pay for, may be brilliant, but evidentlly if ever there is a conflict of interest this system is not ours to use in our defence as we see fit.

Talk about a capatalist will sell you the rope to hang you with. In the current economic climate we are told that massive quatities £ $ and Euros are now held by countries that only a short time ago were enemies. It strikes me, they now have the the means to buy our defence companies with our own money.

I found the BBC article very useful. In particular it emphasised that Trident is but one of the weapons arsenal available to us. I don't believe we can afford a submarine based weapons system at this juncture.

Of course we may be too far down the procurement path to cut costs immediately, but we need to make the decision that submarine based systems are unnecessary right now.

[Midas]

A recent comment by Liam Fox, the coalition Defence Secretary, was to the effect that he confirmed that the coalition remained committed to a continuous at sea nuclear deterrent but was scrutinising Trident to ensure value for money, a process that would be complete by July - taken from here BBC News - Defence review to look at all potential conflicts - Fox

My personal view is that we can't afford it and no longer need it, and in times when money is tight there are far better things that we could do with the money, apparently around £20 billion in the short term and £60 billion over the next 15 years.

[crazylilting]

The question is would we use it? It is one thing to own something so threatening, but would we really use it? Would we condone the use of nuclear weapons in a war? I wouldn't! So why would we build one?

[octopus]

The Cold War may be over, but there are new potential and actual threats to world peace, in the form of N.Korea and Iran, to name the two most obvious. Whether we need to buy Trident for our own security is open to debate. Certainly we can't afford it.

The worrying thing about Iran and N Korea is that they would be crazy enough to use these weapons; we can"t afford NOT to have these weapons. Where we could ease up is on third world charity cases, and projects like Afghanistan and the EU which are either nothing to do with us, or totaly unnecessay.

As for the cold war, I never really worried about these weapons, as I knew the Russians, or their allies would never use them - because they knew what they would get if they did. Only the dreamers who supported CND thought otherwise. Put into the hands of savages, like the Iranians, it could be very different.

[Midas]

The worrying thing about Iran and N Korea is that they would be crazy enough to use these weapons; we can"t afford NOT to have these weapons. Where we could ease up is on third world charity cases, and projects like Afghanistan, which are nothing to do with us.

As for the cold war, I never really worried about these weapons, as I knew the Russians, or their allies would never use them. Put into the hands of savages, like the Iranians, it could be very different.

Don't you think that if it did ever come to pass that countries like North Korea or Iran (who I don't believe is anywhere near as bad as the largely American hype suggests) used nuclear weapons, that their targets are far more likely to be those countries who aggravate them the most, not Britain sitting halfway round the world and who they must know full well that an attack on, regardless of our independent nuclear capability or not, would draw in the major world powers?

[octopus]

Don't you think that if it did ever come to pass that countries like North Korea or Iran (who I don't believe is anywhere near as bad as the largely American hype suggests) used nuclear weapons, that their targets are far more likely to be those countries who aggravate them the most, not Britain sitting halfway round the world and who they must know full well that an attack on, regardless of our independent nuclear capability or not, would draw in the major world powers?

Good point, Midas. However, when you are dealing with countries such as mentioned you cannot apply the normal rules. Both countries live outside the normal codes, we in the west take for granted. Out of these particular two - N Korea is the less scary - they have had 60 years to do it, but I don"t think it"s impossible. Iranian Muslims, however, we know only to well, are prepared to give their lives for Islam - and geographicaly much closer to the UK. Imagine another 9/11 in the center of London - this time with a nuclear device detonated with hundreds of thousands dead.

When you are dealing with launatics like this we need everything in terms of weapons available for our defence and safety. I would trust them both about as far as I could throw them. Plus, who else is out there with this kind of hardware?

[AMGINGLES]

R.Burgess , are right in what you say , you can see the world government taking form in front of your eyes and dont say you can see anything if you look hard enough.

Get the tinfoil hats china could dump the dollar any minute and feck up our economy , thats why we have to cosy up to the fake commie corrupt scum.

[R Burgess]

I found the BBC article very useful. In particular it emphasised that Trident is but one of the weapons arsenal available to us. I don't believe we can afford a submarine based weapons system at this juncture.

Of course we may be too far down the procurement path to cut costs immediately, but we need to make the decision that submarine based systems are unnecessary right now.

The thing that disgusts me most about govenrment defence force policy is the destruction of its role as Britains finest technicon.

[ryoden]

Good point, Midas. However, when you are dealing with countries such as mentioned you cannot apply the normal rules. Both countries live outside the normal codes, we in the west take for granted. Out of these particular two - N Korea is the less scary - they have had 60 years to do it, but I don"t think it"s impossible. Iranian Muslims, however, we know only to well, are prepared to give their lives for Islam - and geographicaly much closer to the UK. Imagine another 9/11 in the center of London - this time with a nuclear device detonated with hundreds of thousands dead.

When you are dealing with launatics like this we need everything in terms of weapons available for our defence and safety. I would trust them both about as far as I could throw them. Plus, who else is out there with this kind of hardware?

Even if we were the target of a sneaked in nuclear device, us having a nuclear missile system would not prevent it, as you said fanatics will not be put off by anything. Also it would most likely be a terrorist attack and you can't nuke terrorists in retaliation since they don't have a homeland target. In any event I would expect a primary target would be Israel who are more than capable of defending themselves.

If anything I would prefer to spend the x billions on intelligence networks that would spot and stop that sort of sneak deployment in the first place, and leave the posturing with "I have so many more nuclear missile than you do" to the US and Russia.

[soloman]

Even if we were the target of a sneaked in nuclear device, us having a nuclear missile system would not prevent it, as you said fanatics will not be put off by anything. Also it would most likely be a terrorist attack and you can't nuke terrorists in retaliation since they don't have a homeland target. In any event I would expect a primary target would be Israel who are more than capable of defending themselves.

If anything I would prefer to spend the x billions on intelligence networks that would spot and stop that sort of sneak deployment in the first place, and leave the posturing with "I have so many more nuclear missile than you do" to the US and Russia.

I agree. As I posted earlier we would still have the sea borne missiles, and those that can be delivered by aircraft.

[Don]

Even if we were the target of a sneaked in nuclear device, us having a nuclear missile system would not prevent it, as you said fanatics will not be put off by anything. Also it would most likely be a terrorist attack and you can't nuke terrorists in retaliation since they don't have a homeland target. In any event I would expect a primary target would be Israel who are more than capable of defending themselves.

If anything I would prefer to spend the x billions on intelligence networks that would spot and stop that sort of sneak deployment in the first place, and leave the posturing with "I have so many more nuclear missile than you do" to the US and Russia.

I'm in agreement, the nuclear deterrent only works against a rational player, which N. Korea and Iran are not. N. Korea is particularly scary because of the crazed sociopath they have for an absolute dictator and the fact that N. Korea does possess nuclear weapons. Delivery systems for your part of the world are problematic to non-existent for NK at present, but what would preclude them giving or selling a weapon to Muslim fanatics?

Iran? I think they are dangerous but I also think that Ahmadinejad is a useful idiot for the Imams. He rants and raves and the Imam's let him, but I think they have him in check when it comes to any external action. Internally, however he appears to have a free rein in controlling opposition.

[soloman]

I'm in agreement, the nuclear deterrent only works against a rational player, which N. Korea and Iran are not. N. Korea is particularly scary because of the crazed sociopath they have for an absolute dictator and the fact that N. Korea does possess nuclear weapons. Delivery systems for your part of the world are problematic to non-existent for NK at present, but what would preclude them giving or selling a weapon to Muslim fanatics?

Iran? I think they are dangerous but I also think that Ahmadinejad is a useful idiot for the Imams. He rants and raves and the Imam's let him, but I think they have him in check when it comes to any external action. Internally, however he appears to have a free rein in controlling opposition.

I am a little worried here as you need to give me some ideas on who you include in your notion of "rational players" - would Russia be in there perhaps? I hope not!

[Don]

I am a little worried here as you need to give me some ideas on who you include in your notion of "rational players" - would Russia be in there perhaps? I hope not!

And why not, if speaking of the Russian government vs some rogue operators? Russian has always played by the rules of the nuclear deterrent, the fact of our and their continued existence is evidence. They understand the game. MAD works and has worked over the years, West vs. East. It's the players such as the 'Dear Leader' who worry me. He has absolute or damn near absolute control over 26 million slaves who overwhelmingly believe what he says and are controlled by a huge military. Add that to the fact that he is as unstable as a stick of 50 year old dynamite and you have a sure recipe for disaster.

India/Pakistan, for all the posturing and border incidents, doesn't particularly scare me, for now. Let the Mullahs take over in Pakistan and I would be very concerned.

Israel? I think they'd play by the rules up until the day they are pushed so far into a corner that they have absolutely nothing to lose, and even then I think it's anybody's guess, but with the odds in favor of them going nuclear. That's one of the reasons I favor the US's continued support of Israel, to keep their enemies in check and the Israeli's finger off the trigger.

China is another cold war player and they understand the rules of MAD. They also have too much, economically, to lose

My money is on NK, one way or the other; direct action against SK and Japan, or providing a Mid East proxy with a weapon.

Basically, I would include all the major nuclear powers, even the UK

[soloman]

And why not, if speaking of the Russian government vs some rogue operators? Russian has always played by the rules of the nuclear deterrent, the fact of our and their continued existence is evidence. They understand the game. MAD works and has worked over the years, West vs. East. It's the players such as the 'Dear Leader' who worry me. He has absolute or damn near absolute control over 26 million slaves who overwhelmingly believe what he says and are controlled by a huge military. Add that to the fact that he is as unstable as a stick of 50 year old dynamite and you have a sure recipe for disaster.

India/Pakistan, for all the posturing and border incidents, doesn't particularly scare me, for now. Let the Mullahs take over in Pakistan and I would be very concerned.

Israel? I think they'd play by the rules up until the day they are pushed so far into a corner that they have absolutely nothing to lose, and even then I think it's anybody's guess, but with the odds in favor of them going nuclear. That's one of the reasons I favor the US's continued support of Israel, to keep their enemies in check and the Israeli's finger off the trigger.

China is another cold war player and they understand the rules of MAD. They also have too much, economically, to lose

My money is on NK, one way or the other; direct action against SK and Japan, or providing a Mid East proxy with a weapon.

Basically, I would include all the major nuclear powers, even the UK

I am still uneasy. Some of the countries you mention I believe to be very unstable, and after a change of government or regime would act completely differently to how we percieve them now.

[DC]

It only takes up around 5% of the entire defence budget, for what is an extremely powerful political and security tool. Just because they may not have any use now doesn't mean they won't in the future.

[TheMixer]

Or maybe the question is - Can We afford Not To Buy IT?

With mega serious financial problems I would submit that we are a small nation who can no longer afford the luxury of our own independent nuclear deterrent. We need to admit that and spend the money elsewhere.

I don't think it is a deterent to contries like China,Russia,India,Pakistan,Iran and even Franch and the U.S, if things go really bad between in the long term. It's only a deterent if whoever we're detering is actually afraid of it but the only person who'd use a nuke on us if they didn't think we were going to use one on them first, and it's our policy not to, would be a madperson. But a madperson in all those countries i've mentioned could calculate that they could win a nuclear war with Great Britain. They all have more people and landmass than us which means they could take all we've got to hit them with before they wipe us out and nulify the threat to them.

to countries like n.korea who we might be able to win a nuclear war with, i think we can rely on the fact that we have suffient trade with U.S.A and other countries that would mean they wouldn't tolerate losing that trade and stand by and do nothing in the event of another country wanting to wipe us out.
Ergo we don't need them. I think it's just posturing and i hate it. It's not like countries who are under threat to nuclear powers are getting wiped out. If most of our European neighbours don't have one then we can get by without them.

[octopus]

Even if we were the target of a sneaked in nuclear device, us having a nuclear missile system would not prevent it, as you said fanatics will not be put off by anything. Also it would most likely be a terrorist attack and you can't nuke terrorists in retaliation since they don't have a homeland target. In any event I would expect a primary target would be Israel who are more than capable of defending themselves.

If anything I would prefer to spend the x billions on intelligence networks that would spot and stop that sort of sneak deployment in the first place, and leave the posturing with "I have so many more nuclear missile than you do" to the US and Russia.

True, a lot of your post I agree. But not having it would still make us more likely to be a victim of such an attack. There is a world of difference between the Soviet Union and the cold war years, and the launatics of fanatical Islam which we face 2010. But the way I look at it is, yes we need a lot of inteligence collected by Mi6, and such like, but a fruitless operation if we have no means of acting on that threat detected by them so we may have to carry out an intial nuclear strike against a target, say in Iran - who do support such organisations, and actions; hopefully this will never happen. This is why I mentioned Iran: A country that is so far removed from the normal codes of humanity and decency - a country that still allows young girls to be stoned to death, just for "playing away from home"; values like that, would have been probably out of place in europe, in the middle ages, so we can"t afford to take any chances with these savages. If a country allows it"s soil to be used for such purposes - it should be attacked as if is an enemy country.

If you"re looking to cut money, leave Afghanistan to the US - all the succesful targets on 9/11 were in the US, not the UK who don"t need our help, anymore than the heavy wieght champion of the world would need my help against the village bully. Frankly, it is a US problem, like Ulster was British problem If we detect a nuclear threat from Iran, or anywhere, against the UK - then we should do what is necessary, nuclear attack if circumstaces dictate this course of action. Fanatics like this are not detered like western advesaries, but if their goal is thrawted, that would put them off, plus other more moderate countries who might allow their borders to be used for this purpose for financial gain, would very likely think twice about it.

[manrow]

True, a lot of your post I agree. But not having it would still make us more likely to be a victim of such an attack. There is a world of difference between the Soviet Union and the cold war years, and the launatics of fanatical Islam which we face 2010. But the way I look at it is, yes we need a lot of inteligence collected by Mi6, and such like, but a fruitless operation if we have no means of acting on that threat detected by them so we may have to carry out an intial nuclear strike against a target, say in Iran - who do support such organisations, and actions; hopefully this will never happen. This is why I mentioned Iran: A country that is so far removed from the normal codes of humanity and decency - a country that still allows young girls to be stoned to death, just for "playing away from home"; values like that, would have been probably out of place in europe, in the middle ages, so we can"t afford to take any chances with these savages. If a country allows it"s soil to be used for such purposes - it should be attacked as if is an enemy country.

If you"re looking to cut money, leave Afghanistan to the US - all the succesful targets on 9/11 were in the US, not the UK who don"t need our help, anymore than the heavy wieght champion of the world would need my help against the village bully. Frankly, it is a US problem, like Ulster was British problem If we detect a nuclear threat from Iran, or anywhere, against the UK - then we should do what is necessary, nuclear attack if circumstaces dictate this course of action. Fanatics like this are not detered like western advesaries, but if their goal is thrawted, that would put them off, plus other more moderate countries who might allow their borders to be used for this purpose for financial gain, would very likely think twice about it.

I have some sympathy with your well argued posting but for one simple reason cannot endorse it - namely the use of nuclear warheads.
We have more than enough cruise missiles with conventional warheads to make any nation think twice about firing any of their missiles at us. Consider the effect of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan to end the war and understand the horrendous injuries that went with it. Nuclear really has to be an absolute last-ditch weapon and we should use all other types of weaponry before considering its use in future.

[octopus]

I have some sympathy with your well argued posting but for one simple reason cannot endorse it - namely the use of nuclear warheads.
We have more than enough cruise missiles with conventional warheads to make any nation think twice about firing any of their missiles at us. Consider the effect of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan to end the war and understand the horrendous injuries that went with it. Nuclear really has to be an absolute last-ditch weapon and we should use all other types of weaponry before considering its use in future.

I think we are on the same wave length - I am saying that we should not use these weapons willy nilly. But, I think we should remember whom we are dealing with. I am glad you mentioned Japan"s encounter with a nuclear holocaust. The reason that Truman took the decision to take out those two Japanese cities is because they, like our present potential foes did not fear death - so an invasion of Japan would have prolonged the war, probably into the fifties, costing many more allied lives, through fanatical Japanese defence; there may have been a 100,000 + Japanese lives lost, and we could have been talking a millon allied lives lost, had the atom bomb not been used - and that is what Mr Truman was thinking of, I would imagine, and that is what I think of now, in the present - our own! Bearing in mind the appaling treatment given to allied POWs, among many other infamous incidents, that even shocked NAZI OFFICIALS, by theses Japanese thugs, some of these things too sick, and barbaric, to even write down I don"t think the USA owe them any appologies for dropping the bomb. They certainly would on the USA or Britain, if they had been given the chance.

Coming back to the present, we are in as dangerous postion as we were in the 30s, with the rise of Hitler, and Japanese expansion. If a country like Iran sees a chance to carry out such an attack - I think they will. They"re certainly crazy enough - just look how they conduct themselves at home. Fine, as long as it stays at home and the best way to do that is keep Britain as well armed as possible - including these weapons. To be honest, we need them more, now, than during the cold war - with fanatics like these around, expect anything, at any time. They do seem to have a number of things in common with wartime Japan, which to me is very scary.

[soloman]

I think we are on the same wave length - I am saying that we should not use these weapons willy nilly. But, I think we should remember whom we are dealing with. I am glad you mentioned Japan"s encounter with a nuclear holocaust. The reason that Truman took the decision to take out those two Japanese cities is because they, like our present potential foes did not fear death - so an invasion of Japan would have prolonged the war, probably into the fifties, costing many more allied lives, through fanatical Japanese defence; there may have been a 100,000 + Japanese lives lost, and we could have been talking a millon allied lives lost, had the atom bomb not been used - and that is what Mr Truman was thinking of, I would imagine, and that is what I think of now, in the present - our own! Bearing in mind the appaling treatment given to allied POWs, among many other infamous incidents, that even shocked NAZI OFFICIALS, by theses Japanese thugs, some of these things too sick, and barbaric, to even write down I don"t think the USA owe them any appologies for dropping the bomb. They certainly would on the USA or Britain, if they had been given the chance.

Coming back to the present, we are in as dangerous postion as we were in the 30s, with the rise of Hitler, and Japanese expansion. If a country like Iran sees a chance to carry out such an attack - I think they will. They"re certainly crazy enough - just look how they conduct themselves at home. Fine, as long as it stays at home and the best way to do that is keep Britain as well armed as possible - including these weapons. To be honest, we need them more, now, than during the cold war - with fanatics like these around, expect anything, at any time. They do seem to have a number of things in common with wartime Japan, which to me is very scary.

I appreciate your points octopus and you may well achieve your aim, as BBC news is reporting Liam Fox as saying that he is looking into Britain maintaining its independent deterrent and is considering a Trident update or replacement.

I fail to see we can afford it amongst other things!

[SaveTheUK]

No only should we renew trident, we should build a defence system

[octopus]

I appreciate your points octopus and you may well achieve your aim, as BBC news is reporting Liam Fox as saying that he is looking into Britain maintaining its independent deterrent and is considering a Trident update or replacement.

I fail to see we can afford it amongst other things!

More a matter of priority, I would say.

[Yeti]

No only should we renew trident, we should build a defence system

Very true, out side of the RAF and RN we have no air defense system, bar a few Rapier and star streak batteries for battlefield air defense.

Right now we have no defense against cruise or ballistic missile attack.

Trident does not protect us from such attacks but it does provide a deterrent and a strike back ability.

If we cannot afford a replacement then we must renew what we have.

[Midas]

Very true, out side of the RAF and RN we have no air defense system, bar a few Rapier and star streak batteries for battlefield air defense.

Right now we have no defense against cruise or ballistic missile attack.

Trident does not protect us from such attacks but it does provide a deterrent and a strike back ability.

If we cannot afford a replacement then we must renew what we have.

I'd be interested to know exactly who it is you think would be likely to attack the UK to such an extent that we'd be forced to use nuclear weapons in our defence, knowing full well the consequences? Particularly bearing in mind that it's exceedingly unlikely that any attack against us of such degree would be unilateral and not involve one or more of our NATO or other partners.

I quite agree that there are large gaps in our national defence, however Trident would be useless against a cruise or ballistic missile attack. Wouldn't it make far more sense, both economically and security-wise, to scrap Trident and spend the same amount of money on a far more efficient and far more local defence system? The money saved by withdrawing our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan would also contribute significantly to tightening local defence, as well as reducing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks against us.

[Yeti]

I'd be interested to know exactly who it is you think would be likely to attack the UK to such an extent that we'd be forced to use nuclear weapons in our defence, knowing full well the consequences? Particularly bearing in mind that it's exceedingly unlikely that any attack against us of such degree would be unilateral and not involve one or more of our NATO or other partners.

I quite agree that there are large gaps in our national defence, however Trident would be useless against a cruise or ballistic missile attack. Wouldn't it make far more sense, both economically and security-wise, to scrap Trident and spend the same amount of money on a far more efficient and far more local defence system? The money saved by withdrawing our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan would also contribute significantly to tightening local defence, as well as reducing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks against us.

At present I quite agree with you regarding the lack of a nuclear threat to the UK, but I do not see that lack of a threat at present as a reason to dispose of our deterrent though. Its not as if we will quickly be able to build and commission an alternative should the need arise. We lack an alternative delivery system, he have very few bases in strategic areas and no strategic bombing capability. 20-30 years ago nuclear was considered likely, we had bombers armed and ready 24 hours a day, who can say what political environment will exist 10 years down the line let alone 20-30 years. There are states and organization around the world striving to obtain nuclear weapons and some may have the will to use them. If Iran had a small nuclear devices could you guarantee they would not use it on the likes of Israel, not that I am saying we would nuke Iran in response. As long as other nations have nuclear weapons we have to maintain our own deterrent, maybe we should buy some mobile ICBM's instead? Unfortunately there is no way to verify full nuclear disarmament even if all the nations involved agree to it.

What else do we get rid of? All of our heavy armour maybe as we are unlikely to face a major land war again in the near future??? I feel we need to keep as much of a balance force as possible to allow us to react to every possible eventuality I do agree that we need to get out of Iraq and Afghan as soon as possible, as we cannot afford the loss or life or the cost in our present financial situation, sadly it will probably fall apart as soon as the western troops do pull out..

[soloman]

I'd be interested to know exactly who it is you think would be likely to attack the UK to such an extent that we'd be forced to use nuclear weapons in our defence, knowing full well the consequences? Particularly bearing in mind that it's exceedingly unlikely that any attack against us of such degree would be unilateral and not involve one or more of our NATO or other partners.

I quite agree that there are large gaps in our national defence, however Trident would be useless against a cruise or ballistic missile attack. Wouldn't it make far more sense, both economically and security-wise, to scrap Trident and spend the same amount of money on a far more efficient and far more local defence system? The money saved by withdrawing our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan would also contribute significantly to tightening local defence, as well as reducing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks against us.

I totally concur; a great pity that the politicians haven't discussed this in depth recently.

[manrow]

I totally concur; a great pity that the politicians haven't discussed this in depth recently.

Now that the chancellor has said that any expenditure on Trident must come out of the total defence budget, I would venture to suggest it is a non-starter?

[soloman]

Now that the chancellor has said that any expenditure on Trident must come out of the total defence budget, I would venture to suggest it is a non-starter?

This could be an interesting tussle and could even demonstrate whether the coalition is serious about cutting expenditure on some of its sensitive programmes.
If getting the economy right is a sacred cow, then surely Trident must go at least for the time being.

[Midas]

George Osborne is absolutely right to have told the MoD that the cost of Trident is down to them; it's a defence item therefore if they want it, it should come out of the defence budget. A large part of the problem is the military think they're a law unto themselves and they become very resentful when it's pointed out that they're not. Trident is outdated, unnecessary and expensive, and if this move forces a major rethink within the MoD on where our money is spent and what's value for that money and what isn't, I'm all for it.

[soloman]

George Osborne is absolutely right to have told the MoD that the cost of Trident is down to them; it's a defence item therefore if they want it, it should come out of the defence budget. A large part of the problem is the military think they're a law unto themselves and they become very resentful when it's pointed out that they're not. Trident is outdated, unnecessary and expensive, and if this move forces a major rethink within the MoD on where our money is spent and what's value for that money and what isn't, I'm all for it.

It is about time we acknowledged that we are no longer a world power; I say that from the point of view we can no longer afford to fight battles on behalf of other nations!

[crazylilting]

It is about time we acknowledged that we are no longer a world power; I say that from the point of view we can no longer afford to fight battles on behalf of other nations!

I hear the trident would fetch a few bob's on the open market. Would go a long way to cleaning up some of our financial mess i'm sure.

[Midas]

I hear the trident would fetch a few bob's on the open market. Would go a long way to cleaning up some of our financial mess i'm sure.

I've got a couple of friends in the Middle East who might be able to put a feeler or two out for a decent commission. I'm off to Abu Dhabi in November, so shall I ask around; do you think Mr. Cameron would mind or should I check with him or Mr. Osborne first

[Yeti]

It is about time we acknowledged that we are no longer a world power; I say that from the point of view we can no longer afford to fight battles on behalf of other nations!

Thats been evident since the end of WW2, question is what sort of role do we want to play in the world? I am still of the opinion that we need to maintain nuclear deterent, Trident or its replacement may not necessary be the way forward, maybe ICBM'S might be a cheaper alternative? Hell the boats we have now are good why not just upgrade and refit them.

[Major Sinic]

I hear the trident would fetch a few bob's on the open market. Would go a long way to cleaning up some of our financial mess i'm sure.

Perhaps we should sound out the Pakistan intelligence services. I am sure they would be on the lookout for a good deal on behalf of their associates in the Taliban. Oh! hush my mouth. Some people don't like the risk of the truth being heard about our Pakistani allies!

[octopus]

It is about time we acknowledged that we are no longer a world power; I say that from the point of view we can no longer afford to fight battles on behalf of other nations!

But we may need to fight our own battles.

[flash]

It is about time we acknowledged that we are no longer a world power; I say that from the point of view we can no longer afford to fight battles on behalf of other nations!

I wish the leaders of my country had that same attitude in the 1940s.

After the Great Depression the US was hardly a world power. Our military was pathetic. The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we had an obligation to respond.

However, we didn’t just go after the people that attacked us. Instead we intervened in a European war that had nothing to do with our own security. We fought the war in Europe on behalf of other nations and lost over a quarter of a million men and untold billions of dollars doing it.

Germany was never a threat to the US. Germany couldn’t even take your little island no less be a significant threat to the US but yet we expended considerable resources fighting on your behalf. We also spent billions of dollars on the European welfare scheme known as the Marshal Plan. In the long run all we got out of it was a seat at the table to confront the Soviets

I was in the US Army in 1967 and for a few months served in Germany. My unit was stationed on the Fulda Gap near the city of Kassel. I was there with tens of thousands of my fellow Americans. We were not there opposing the Soviet’s Third Shock Army because the Soviets were going to invade the US. We were there on the behalf of other nations to keep the Soviets from overrunning Europe, including your little island.

I may be wrong but I suppose your real convictions is that the US should always stand ready to help you but nowadays you don’t want to return the obligation because your taxes are too high.

I suppose that attitude is justified from a nationalistic standpoint but remember that be careful for what you wish because you may get it.

Also, to make another point. Your country is in bad shape financially just like mine and most of the rest of the Europe. It is because we let out of control government spending take over our economies and nowadays some of us can’t even afford to defend ourselves. The problem of going broke is much more the consequence of financial irresponsibility than it is foreign policy.

I am a non interventionist American. I don’t want my country to intervene militarily in any conflict that doesn’t directly affect the security of the US. I suspect in the long run you Europeans will be hurt the most from an American non Interventionist policy because every 50 years or so you get yourself into some filthy war and expect the Americans to bail you out.

[Midas]

But we may need to fight our own battles.

But how long has it been since Britain was involved in any battle which directly affected us where we haven't fought on our own? The last war we were involved in which peripherally affected the security of the country and its overseas territories was the Falklands War, which we coped with without any outside help; all other battles we've been involved in that spring to mind have been either as a result of us jumping in after the US when we didn't need to - to our acknowledged detriment terrorism-wise - or as a member of either NATO or UN peacekeeping activities. We'd do far better to concentrate our security round our own borders, and only get involved where any remaining overseas territories or commonwealth countries are either being directly threatened and/or specifically requested our assistance.

[crazylilting]

Perhaps we should sound out the Pakistan intelligence services. I am sure they would be on the lookout for a good deal on behalf of their associates in the Taliban. Oh! hush my mouth. Some people don't like the risk of the truth being heard about our Pakistani allies!

LoL! Some of us don't mind a little plain talk. That should be the new diplomatic approach to talks.

[radical change]

We don't need trident what we need is a defense for nuclear weapons as we have no intentions to attack with nuclear weaponry but we need defense from possible terrorist attacks and north Korea

but

we may need it for countries to recognize that we have a position in the world and they can't mess around with us or they will pay a price in their capital city, we will be fine anyway as we will probably just be a state in a country that will soon be the united states of Europe

[Midas]

We don't need trident what we need is a defense for nuclear weapons as we have no intentions to attack with nuclear weaponry but we need defense from possible terrorist attacks and north Korea

There's very little by way of defence against a nuclear attack. If it's by ICBM there are only two systems I'm aware of which will suffice, the American Safeguard and the Russian A-35, neither of which are deployed in the UK. If it's by way of a clandestine attack, secreting a bomb somewhere in a major city, perhaps easier than some might imagine especially if it comes in via an embassy, about the only defence is good intelligence and traditional leg work by the security forces. I can't see that Trident or anything similar would be of much use in either scenario.

but

we may need it for countries to recognize that we have a position in the world and they can't mess around with us or they will pay a price in their capital city, we will be fine anyway as we will probably just be a state in a country that will soon be the united states of Europe

Do we have a position in the world any longer? Do we even want 'a position' in the world, certainly in military terms? Far better in my view to pull back completely from all overseas military involvements, concentrate our resources on our own border and internal security and go out and try to conquer the world commercially instead. We certainly don't need the EU for either of those, and pulling back from our military involvements would also mean that any terrorists would be less likely to view us as their enemy.

[radical change]

There's very little by way of defence against a nuclear attack. If it's by ICBM there are only two systems I'm aware of which will suffice, the American Safeguard and the Russian A-35, neither of which are deployed in the UK. If it's by way of a clandestine attack, secreting a bomb somewhere in a major city, perhaps easier than some might imagine especially if it comes in via an embassy, about the only defence is good intelligence and traditional leg work by the security forces. I can't see that Trident or anything similar would be of much use in either scenario.



Do we have a position in the world any longer? Do we even want 'a position' in the world, certainly in military terms? Far better in my view to pull back completely from all overseas military involvements, concentrate our resources on our own border and internal security and go out and try to conquer the world commercially instead. We certainly don't need the EU for either of those, and pulling back from our military involvements would also mean that any terrorists would be less likely to view us as their enemy.

Then we invent our own nuclear defense system like we invented stuff in the victorian era.

I also don't see the point in us going into Afghanistan or Iraq when the U.S obviously don't need us and the reasons for both are messed up as Iraq had no nuclear program and terrorism will just move to another country like Pakistan