It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beckett calls for Trident debate

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   


Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has called for a public debate on renewing the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent.

Mrs Beckett said in an interview with the Sunday Times it was important to ask "do we go on with this?"

Some Labour MPs have accused ministers of trying to stifle discussion about plans to replace Trident - which are estimated to cost up to £25bn.

An announcement on Trident, set to be decommissioned in about 20 years' time, is expected before the next election.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


news.bbc.co.uk...

It will be a dangerous thing for this Country to give up its Nuclear deterrent. In my opinion, i feel that we shouldn't just "up date to it", but we should increase our arsenal. With North Korea and the likes of Iran both aiming to join the Nuclear club, we need to be able to protect ourselves and our Commonwealth partners (especially those who do not have nuclear weapons). Plus, we need to protect our overseas territories.




posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I agree we should both expand and update our nuclear capbilities as we are a small island with big ambitions, but in saying that we really don't know what the uk have as we are excellent at keeping secrets for the most part.
And another problem is most of our experts are working in america or for america, well it's all the same thing really

Go team amrerica with side kick pudddle uk government.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I can't imagine a better deterrent than the Ohio(Trident) submarines and the Russian Typhoon, I can't believe anyone who has them would want to give them up unilaterally.

[edit on 10/29/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I can see an argument that says if others have these weapons then 'we' should maintain at least some of these weapons of last resort.

I'm not persuaded that we need so many as are now operated.

I certainly do think that it is patently absurd to pretend that 'we' face a level of 'threat' (especially a nuclear threat) that equals the 'threat' felt previously during the so-called 'cold war'.

If 'we' are to give a lead to other countries and prove 'we' are serious about the NPT and nuclear weapons reduction we should not give ourselves over to paranoia but look soberly at where 'we' can reduce our nuclear stockpile.

The British nuclear deterrent is a disproportionately expensive drain on the UK's military budget.
IMO we should look again at whether 'we' really need the current enormous (and enormously expensive) 4 x 16 missile submarines currently operated.

It appears submarines are the best means of ensuring survivability so perhaps the immediate path will be an extension of the operating life of Trident and ultimately a replacement by smaller subs with less missiles on board.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
we could always go back to "plan B"
and that was to share a nuclear arsenal with France, which might be a cheaper way if Europe had a joint arsenal.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
we could always go back to "plan B"
and that was to share a nuclear arsenal with France, which might be a cheaper way if Europe had a joint arsenal.


Well we could just have a joint NATO submarine boomer force, but the problem is how do we decide when to pull the trigger? If New York or London gets nuked, will the French and the rest of the committee agree to retaliate with nuclear weapons? Sorry if this offends anyone, but I wouldn't trust the safety of my country with the French.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
but I wouldn't trust the safety of my country with the French.


LMFAO

many will agree with you on that statement.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sorry if this offends anyone, but I wouldn't trust the safety of my country with the French.


Here here!

It is the duty of the UK Government (not the French Government, or the American Government or anyone else) to defend this country. And whilst the threat certainly has been reduced since the end of the Cold War, we still should retain a nuclear deterrent. To be specific, a submarine-based deterrent as these have proven effective. The missiles can't be taken out prior to a nuclear strike because you don't know where they are - and, let's face it, you've got two-thirds of the Earth to search in order to find them.

We should extend the life of Trident at the very least, but I wouldn't commit myself to a firm decision until I've seen the alternatives. As much as I welcome the debate, the Government so far hasn't really given us much in the way of Trident alternatives... only: "Should we replace it or should we scrap it?". I'd like to know what we can replace it with
(Most likely whatever the Americans design as their next SLBM).

As for nuclear disarmament... Britain's policy should be this: As long as any other nation on earth possesses nuclear weapons, we should retain ours whether they are friend or foe. However, I'd be very happy for the UK to take part in a joint treaty which involved all other nuclear states in which they all disarm proportionately until they possess no more... though the chances of this happening are pretty slim



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join