Live UK political debates

[CrazyHorse]

FootballFan said:

CrazyHorse said:

The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).

The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.

 

@FootballFan

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.

1.For nuclear disarmament to work I think that all major nuclar countries need to follow the same scipt. It's no good just the UK, USA and Russia disarming when N.Korea and Iran won't budge. Im all for getting rid of Nuclear/Chemical warfare but only a few countries removing the capabilities is just ridiculous.

2.I never suggested that, however im not a great fan of negotiating with the enemy either.

Clearly I would love it if we removed our army and police forces and made those people unemployed but we need to be realistic, the world isn't just butterflies and dafodils.

1. This is the problem with nuclear deterrent now. We are no longer in the cold war and the current threats we face from nuclear attack are probably the ones least likely to be deterred. I'm not sure how a nuclear deterrent would work against stopping a terrorist attack and leaders of rogue states may not always be inclined to think about the safety of their citizens in a retaliatory strike, particularily if they feel they are about to be ousted or killed. Not saying that means we need to get rid of our arsenal but a new strategy is needed.

2. It seemed to be implied from your response to Rastari. I just get tied of people throwing around those kind of statements when someone suggests that the nuclear  deterrent / trident needs rethinking. Apologies if I misinterpreted it.