Renew Our WMD Capability?

[GeorgeTuk]

I know this is an oft asked question so I was just going to see what peoples opinion was. Just one response and no slanging match.

And make this purely for the UK.

[flcherb]

I think we should to keep the peace

Thats my short optinion.

Herb

[GrahamGarside]

I actually do believe Britain being a nuclear power is important. I mean look at all the other nuclear nations, US, USSR (you ain't kidding no one with your Russian Federation, I'm on to you!), China, France, India, Pakistan and Israel and the possibility of N.Korea, Japan and Iran joining the club, would you really be comfortable in a world where Britain didn't also have that power?

Nuclear weapons are a powerful deterrent and the fact is we will never see all nations genuinely disarm.

[Andehh]

Originally Posted by GrahamGarside

I actually do believe Britain being a nuclear power is important. I mean look at all the other nuclear nations, US, USSR (you ain't kidding no one with your Russian Federation, I'm on to you!), China, France, India, Pakistan and Israel and the possibility of N.Korea, Japan and Iran joining the club, would you really be comfortable in a world where Britain didn't also have that power?

Nuclear weapons are a powerful deterrent and the fact is we will never see all nations genuinely disarm.

Couldnt agree more, i cant help but feel the #1 option is biased against getting them though. 'to hell with the costs' - think it could be worded better IMO.

[BUFF]

Originally Posted by Andehh

cant help but feel the #1 option is biased against getting them though. 'to hell with the costs' - think it could be worded better IMO.

agreed as could the original question "Should the UK be upgrading its nuclear deterrent?" - it's more about replacement than upgrading.

[YorkieBen]

tbh with the replacement of the nukes, we only have 2 real options - either replace trident directly or get rid. Nukes on cruise missiles or on aircraft are not really a truely viable option as they are way too vulnerable

[excalibur2]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTuk

I know this is an oft asked question so I was just going to see what peoples opinion was. Just one response and no slanging match.

And make this purely for the UK.

We had one once when just bombers were around i.e independent nuclear deterrent, but the submarines and equipment depend on being friendly with the US, now there is an argument about buying the new strike fighter because the US are not willing to give the UK the computer codes to arm it WTF...............so how independent will our new deterrent be.

[JPreston]

Originally Posted by excalibur2

....so how independent will our new deterrent be.

It will be owned by the US, and leased to us, so not at all independent. We could never use them without US clearance, and if we were naughty we could have them confiscated at any time. In reality we would just be acommodating and maintaining an element of US nuclear capability, and paying them for it.

This is more about Blair propping up the US economy with a nice fat handout of tax payer's money, than it is about defence.

And anyway:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

So I voted 'no'

[excalibur2]

Originally Posted by JPreston

It will be owned by the US, and leased to us, so not at all independent. We could never use them without US clearance, and if we were naughty we could have them confiscated at any time. In reality we would just be acommodating and maintaining an element of US nuclear capability, and paying them for it.

This is more about Blair propping up the US economy with a nice fat handout of tax payer's money, than it is about defence.

And anyway:



So I voted 'no'

Haven't the French something similar...we would have more independence if we went into partnership with them. Of course the US system is ahead in technology ATM but if a sub could just release a rocket with just one nuclear warhead it still would be a deterrent......If not, why is everyone worried about Iran.

[GrahamGarside]

People are worried about Iran sending a school boy with backpack a crazy set of ideals off into a major city not actual missile deployment.

Of course the idea of having US weapons on our soil scares me far more, it would truly lock us in for the long haul on whatever direction their foreign policy takes over coming years.

[excalibur2]

Originally Posted by GrahamGarside

Of course the idea of having US weapons on our soil scares me far more, it would truly lock us in for the long haul on whatever direction their foreign policy takes over coming years.

Ya mean star wars as well? Well I don't mind as long as the UK gets something out of it.........A British PM could also tell a US president...."It's nothing personal, just business"

[YorkieBen]

Originally Posted by JPreston

It will be owned by the US, and leased to us, so not at all independent. We could never use them without US clearance, and if we were naughty we could have them confiscated at any time. In reality we would just be acommodating and maintaining an element of US nuclear capability, and paying them for it.

This is more about Blair propping up the US economy with a nice fat handout of tax payer's money, than it is about defence.

And anyway:



So I voted 'no'

the missiles are 'leased', however there is no physical way the Americans can stop us using our nuclear weapons short of sinking our subs (and they would have a VERY hard time doing that) or invading Britain and seizing them in port.

I voted yes as we need a deterrent - btw the French system costs far more overall as they have to do all the independent research etc and it is nowhere near as good

[GeorgeTuk]

Originally Posted by YorkieBen

the missiles are 'leased', however there is no physical way the Americans can stop us using our nuclear weapons short of sinking our subs (and they would have a VERY hard time doing that) or invading Britain and seizing them in port.

I voted yes as we need a deterrent - btw the French system costs far more overall as they have to do all the independent research etc and it is nowhere near as good

None of us will know the deal however I was under the impression we bought the delivery systems and pay for continued maintanence from Lockheed Martin UK. The warheads themselves are British made and developed so its our choice how to use them. There would obviously be pressure from all countries before it got to the point of using these but we are independant and we hold the launch codes (apparently also all upl0ad cod3z!) so we can fire at fire.

[blueball]

My choice wasn't in the poll. No we don't need it but we do need defence - spend the money on some decent body armour for the troops and for improving the health care they get (as the military hospitals have been closed and they are left in the stampede for NHS support)

Spend the balance on helping people in Britain.

[YorkieBen]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTuk

None of us will know the deal however I was under the impression we bought the delivery systems and pay for continued maintanence from Lockheed Martin UK. The warheads themselves are British made and developed so its our choice how to use them. There would obviously be pressure from all countries before it got to the point of using these but we are independant and we hold the launch codes (apparently also all upl0ad cod3z!) so we can fire at fire.

I was under the missiles were leased, Im not sure though.

I do agree though our deterrence is independent - however I very much doubt that the PM would give the order to fire without consulting the US and indeed France and Russia - neither would any other national leader - you dont fire off an ICBM without telling anyone because such things make people kind of jumpy...

[99Flake]

I voted yes and to hell with the cost. As people have pointed out as the world's climate stands we are in an even more precarious situation. Our 'friendship' with the US only helps to make us look worse.

As for who would own the weapons, well we would lease the missiles but the platform i.e a new fleet of subs would completely owned by us as they are now. The current Vanguard class was built by Vickers marine and I would expect the same for its replacement.

On another point, remember this is a long term plan so by the time it comes to fruition the current generation will be out of date. This is not a decision based on whether to immediatly replace but a long term project for something to be superceded when that item has run its lifespan.

(Then it will be sold to the Canadian Navy)