|There has been much speculation recently of the replacement of Britain’s nuclear arsenal. it has been claimed the nearly £100 billion could be saved by scraping Britain’s nuclear arsenal and axing plans for a replacement.
however while this will save money, many people claim that such cuts would mean that Britain’s already declining world influence (which is sadly true, and it breaks my heart to say so) would be relegated to a third rate power without the presence of our nuclear arsenal, it is also debated as to how much of any possible savings made of cutting trident would find their way back into the armed forces.
in my personal opinion if such cuts were made, at least 30% of any savings made should be spread evenly throughout the armed forces, with emphasis being placed on expanding each force without top priority being given to the Army then the Navy.
in some ways i feel that such cuts could result in many benefits, it may lead to the desperate expansion and repair of our damaged armed forces, that have been ravaged by defence cuts since the end of the cold war, but at what price?, and as mentioned before we cannot be sure that the money saved would be put back into the forces, on the other hand i would not want Britain to sacrifice is world standing for the sake of saving money, I do not like the idea of nuclear weapons, the idea of complete nuclear war is frankly quite disturbing, maybe it would be better to get rid of them? But i would not like to see our great nation suffer for it.
i would like to know what others think on this matter, should we keep them, or should we make the cuts, and if so where should the money saved be spent?