5 thoughts on “Should the government reconsider its decision to proceed with Trident?”

  1. Posted 01/11/2012 at 12:34 | Permalink

    I have no objection to cutting UK military expenditure but why do it at the one end of the military spectrum that is reasonably efficient? Trident is cheap and its the best. I personally don’t think we should be waging wars overseas, I believe the military should be for defence and Trident is the epitome of a defensive weapon.

  2. Posted 01/11/2012 at 15:12 | Permalink

    I agree that Mr Hammond is entirely erroneous regarding the ‘job creation’ aspects of Trident. Unfortunately, the author entirely misunderstands the point of thermonuclear weapons – they are not intended to be used! This is also true of many of the UK’s high-end conventional weapons systems to a degree. It may not be a rationale one agrees with, but it is one nonetheless (politicians don’t use it as a rationale because most people seem incapable of comprehending it). As far as the UK’s armed forces go, Trident is the last thing that should be cut because it delivers the most powerful weapon and the greatest enhancement of the UK’s power-political position – again, one may not agree with that but that does not remove the essential truth of it – for the cost. The UK’s conventional forces are, by contrast, extremely costly for the benefits they deliver. Thousands of soldiers (and their housing, pay, pensions etc) are very expensive and far less capable of delivering political benefit – the conflict in Afghanistan, which is about to end, probably did more harm than good to the UK’s security. Also, the Army has failed in its mission in Afghanistan – arguably – and Iraq and has distracted the UK from far more substantial issues. Much fat could also be cut off the RAF at least, and the best way to trim the defence budget would probably be to eliminate most of it, reallocating the portions to the Army and Navy accordingly, thus also saving on functional duplication.

  3. Posted 02/11/2012 at 00:13 | Permalink

    Germany, Italy, Canada and the other medium ranked countries don’t have a permanent position in the UN security council, the only other exception being the French who also have nuclear weapons.

  4. Posted 02/11/2012 at 11:12 | Permalink

    “nuclear weapons are not really about deterrence at all. They are about prestige”

    Put another way, our nuclear arsenal isn’t about deterring our enemies, but keeping up with the French.

    Surprisingly, most people I know think that’s worth spending £20 billion on. But then, most people thought Concorde was worth the money because we got so much prestige, too.

  5. Posted 03/12/2012 at 16:49 | Permalink

    Faced-down ‘lower-life-form’ 1996 [he found-God Kirkham Prison 1995]; typical-of-those ready-to-detonate ‘liberated’ warhead likely already-here, in-the-UK.

    Trident does NOT-work; with no-launch-detection… expect-more [Blair…] overwhelming-evidence. With London… vaporised expect another Valentines-Day Churchill-Dresden.

    ‘Nut-jobs’ are-NOT snout-in-trough politician’s; ready-to-die, litigation is-pointless.

Comments are closed.