Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Britain may replace Trident--
Herc the Merc    11/26/2006 5:29:41 PM
NUKEWARS Britain To Unveil Plans To Replace Nuclear Missile System File photo: Trident missile launch. by Staff Writers London (AFP) Nov 22, 2006 Britain is to publish proposals by the end of the year on how to replace its ageing nuclear deterrent Trident missiles, Prime Minister Tony Blair told lawmakers Monday. Blair confirmed a question from the leader of the smaller opposition Liberal Democrats Menzies Campbell that the government's position on whether to maintain the Trident missile system would be set out by the turn of the year. He also said he was "sure" lawmakers would get a chance to vote on the issue. "I believe it is important that we maintain the independent nuclear deterrent," he told Campbell during the weekly "prime minister's questions" in the lower chamber House of Commons. The issue of whether to scrap Trident -- which will become obsolete with the four Vanguard class submarines that carry them in the mid-2020s -- is a deeply divisive issue among Blair's governing Labour Party. Scrapping nuclear weapons -- and also nuclear power -- was a totemic issue for the left-wing party in the 1980s but the policy was dropped before the 1997 general election, when Blair's revamped centre-left "New Labour" was elected. Instead, its manifesto pledged to retain Trident. Blair's likely successor, finance minister Gordon Brown, has previously said he, too, is in favour of keeping Britain's nuclear deterrent. But a number of senior ministers, including Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, reportedly have concerns about it. Anti-nuclear campaigners are currently lobbying hard against any replacement, including via an online petition on the prime minister's own website. By Wednesday, there had been more than 2,000 signatories supporting the motion: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
eldnah       12/4/2006 11:54:53 AM
Great Britain's French co-national in the EU is still building Triomphants with new missles and France will surely protect her from Iranian or other potential rouge states' nuclear coercion. Why should Britain waste money on a duplicative program that could better be spent on social programs?
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       12/4/2006 2:03:26 PM
lightningtest:
No, I do not agree that the UK weapons don't alter the balence now. I think that they do.

Sending the sub crews to the US is a pretty poor idea, as it would completely remove any UK capability to build, maintain or operate subs not provided in working order. That's why it would cost less, because it wouldn't provide the same capability.

eldnah:
Nothing personal, but I wouldn't trust the French Government further than I could throw the Ark Royal. Not that they're all bad - they've helped us out in the past - but I still wouldn't rely on them. 

I wouldn't trust the US either.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       12/4/2006 3:25:27 PM
I was trying to be facetious. Were I im my usual cynical mood I would have finished the last sentence ...........social programs that would ensure Liberal MPs reelections?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/4/2006 3:26:45 PM
Nuclear weapons are a state survival tool.  They are the most potent weapon of any military.  I would sooner scrap the army before giving away our nukes.
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    lighteningStrikes   12/4/2006 4:00:29 PM

If the silo's are in the US midwest we can count on the Americans. (emphasis added.)

I can assure readers that yours truly, an American lawyer who lives in the US midwest, in coordination with his professional contacts will exhaust every conceivable legal, political, media and protest mechanism to prevent the UK or any other cheapskate socialist country from foisting its foreign WMD on midwest soil so the country may save a few quid on defense.

Britain stands a better chance of resurrecting Beagle 2 and rendering it sufficiently operable to explore Mars. 

v^2



 
Quote    Reply

StudentofConflict       12/5/2006 3:30:45 AM
I can't even believe theres any debate on the subject. Trident has to be replaced with a new SLBM. That nonsense about basing ICBMs in the Falklands or US can be dismissed as the childish drivel it is. Look at the state of the world at the moment!! Yes, we'd certainly be more secure if Iran/North Korea had nukes and we didn't!?!?! I swear, if they decide not to buy new nukes, I'm emigrating to the US, as it'd be final proof that the UK has decided to commit suicide as a society. 
 
Quote    Reply

StudentofConflict       12/5/2006 3:34:08 AM
PS don't call us cheapskate socialists VelocityVector, I don't call you bloated ill educated religious fanatics do I?
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest       12/5/2006 8:35:25 AM

lightningtest:
No, I do not agree that the UK weapons don't alter the balence now. I think that they do.

Sending the sub crews to the US is a pretty poor idea, as it would completely remove any UK capability to build, maintain or operate subs not provided in working order. That's why it would cost less, because it wouldn't provide the same capability.
.....
I wouldn't trust the US either.

The UK would still be building attack subs which could be lengthened and launch tubes installed when required.  So we wouldn't have to lose the technology base.  Sending "bomber" sub crews to man trident II submarines designated from the time the keel is laid to be NATO assests and then maintained over in Bangor would only be awful from the cultural aspect USN vs RN working in turn on the same boat.
 
I get the hint from all the posters that trusting our national defense to any other nation is childish and stupid.  So I turn the question around.  Why do we leave the neutron source production in Sandia Labs?  Congress has to approve each transfer of sources and at any stage can decide to neuter our deterant with the certainty of tritium decay.
 
The UK deterant is called "operationally" independant for exact this and possibly other reasons.  Why do we accept this if we supposedly can't rely on the US?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/5/2006 9:12:09 AM

 

The UK deterant is called "operationally" independant for exact this and possibly other reasons.  Why do we accept this if we supposedly can't rely on the US?



At the end of the day we have the capability to nuke the USA's major cities back to the stone age.  What else matters?
 
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       12/5/2006 10:07:15 AM
A lot of us Yanks would view the Brits letting their nuclear deterrent lapse as another example of NATO dumping more of the financial responsiblity for the military part of the alliance on the US. With the pound and euro rising against the dollar it seems particularly inappropriate. I grant you that no country other than perhaps Australia has been as good a friend of the US in the past century than Great Britain.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics