No Trident?

Exocet

Just worked out why the Liberals don't need Trident. In the event of a launch of Russian missiles towards the UK, they would need to convene a series of interminable meetings, and after a few days of deliberation take a vote forward to their 50 MP's who would then want for further information in order to reach a decision. As the country would now be a nuclear wasteland that information would not be forthcoming. So they are right. Not much point in having anything more powerful than a water pistol.

edit: I don't actually want Trident either, but am so frustrated with the length of meetings, the back and forwards, the seeming incapability of MAKING A DECISION, that I either blow my top or make a silly comment.

jonewer

Dont worry, the one-eyed snot eater is going to resign tonight.

vaporate

If you want to hand this country on a plate then yeh no trident... (crazy)

At least Russia would be a waste land too if they so tried.

Lastly, and more sensibly, trident is CRUCIAL for us, the UK. It is used as a tool wager.

Only a complete MORON would get rid of trident. Even Brown has the brains to figure that one out.

Malcolm.

No trident doesn't equal no nuclear deterrant.

The libdems wanted to investigate whether there was a cheaper option than trident.

Simples.

vaporate

Malcolm. wrote: »

No trident doesn't equal no nuclear deterrant.

The libdems wanted to investigate whether there was a cheaper option than trident.

Simples.

Yes it does. Else all countries would scrap it.

There is no cheaper option. More so when it comes to the defence of this country.

Want cuts? Cut the benefit system. (e.g. £250 child vouchers?!)

mbga9pgf

I reckon we will go for an air launched system or TLAM based off attack subs. Much cheaper than trident, still F*cks lots of people up if we need to in the name of self defence.State on state nuclear defence is pointless. Nuclear retaliation against rogue nations and making pyongyang glow in the dark would be the aim.

Andy_L

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I reckon we will go for an air launched system or TLAM based off attack subs.

Nope, every study shows that they don't achieve the stragetic requirements for a UK deterrent. The choice is between Nuclear disarmament or SLBM (where Trident is, effectively, the only game in town) and minor tweeks about the number of submarines & missiles/warheads

purch

Why ?

Why is a nuclear deterrent not crucial for Germany, Japan, Australia, Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, and all the other countries who don't waste billions of their tax revenues on one ?

Cat695

purch wrote: »

Why ?

Why is a nuclear deterrent not crucial for Germany, Japan, Australia, Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, and all the other countries who don't waste billions of their tax revenues on one ?

as said time and time again

The people with nukes have more say than the people with out them...it really is that simple.

purch

:rotfl:

So the U.K. and France have more say :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

A stupid little country on the fringe of Europe with the biggest debt problem amongst the whole Industrialised World......and we need to spend billions on silly missiles that we have never ever fired in anger and never will :rotfl::rotfl:

Hilarious.

No wonder this country is ruined !!!!

kennyboy66_2

Cat695 wrote: »

as said time and time again

The people with nukes have more say than the people with out them...it really is that simple.

Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea have more influence than Germany & Japan ?

Righty ho.