![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueIt would appear that the Trident program is up for renewal. Our nuclear submarines, and their ICBMs are getting old and out of date.
Renewal is costed at between 10 and 25 billion.
As you may have guessed, this has sparked some fierce debate, about 'nuclear deterrent'.
For my money, we may as well just scrap Trident. Simply because by the time we're prepared to actually fire, we'll have already lost whatever conflict we're looking at, and it'll be retribution.
I mean, just ask yourself for a moment: You're the one in charge of the arsenal. At what point are you prepared to fire them? When someone declares war? When they threaten you with nukes? When you have soldiers on your land? Or when they've fired already, and you want to kill all their civilians too?
The problem with ICBMs you see, is they're strategic. What they're really good at is cutting the heart out of a few square miles of city.
In general, I'm not against nuclear weapons. They're like, bombs that explode bigtime, and have a few secondary affects.
The thing I have a problem with though, is that there's really never a moral case for 'stop your army, or we'll blow up a lot of your civilians'. That's pretty much what the terrorists do.
And frankly, I don't think any of our politicians (and strategic nukes _is_ a political decision) would be prepared to do that either.
At least, I hope they wouldn't and if they are, then I'd rather like them to stop representing me in Parliment.
So, let's just scrap trident. If the defense is that important, let's buy a load of new toys for the Armed Forces. I'm sure 10 - 25 bn of ships/aircraft/guns will go a long way. Nukes are a fairly cost effective solution - they give a lot of bang for your money. But they're also the First world equivalent of sucide bombing. Ugly, nasty and utterly pointless.
The UK will still be a 'nuclear power' - I'm pretty certain there's quite a few 'special weapons' locked up in bunkers around the world. They're unlikely to get used too, but I can at least see that they _might_ be used as tactical weapons. 4 minute citykillers, are really not needed.
Renewal is costed at between 10 and 25 billion.
As you may have guessed, this has sparked some fierce debate, about 'nuclear deterrent'.
For my money, we may as well just scrap Trident. Simply because by the time we're prepared to actually fire, we'll have already lost whatever conflict we're looking at, and it'll be retribution.
I mean, just ask yourself for a moment: You're the one in charge of the arsenal. At what point are you prepared to fire them? When someone declares war? When they threaten you with nukes? When you have soldiers on your land? Or when they've fired already, and you want to kill all their civilians too?
The problem with ICBMs you see, is they're strategic. What they're really good at is cutting the heart out of a few square miles of city.
In general, I'm not against nuclear weapons. They're like, bombs that explode bigtime, and have a few secondary affects.
The thing I have a problem with though, is that there's really never a moral case for 'stop your army, or we'll blow up a lot of your civilians'. That's pretty much what the terrorists do.
And frankly, I don't think any of our politicians (and strategic nukes _is_ a political decision) would be prepared to do that either.
At least, I hope they wouldn't and if they are, then I'd rather like them to stop representing me in Parliment.
So, let's just scrap trident. If the defense is that important, let's buy a load of new toys for the Armed Forces. I'm sure 10 - 25 bn of ships/aircraft/guns will go a long way. Nukes are a fairly cost effective solution - they give a lot of bang for your money. But they're also the First world equivalent of sucide bombing. Ugly, nasty and utterly pointless.
The UK will still be a 'nuclear power' - I'm pretty certain there's quite a few 'special weapons' locked up in bunkers around the world. They're unlikely to get used too, but I can at least see that they _might_ be used as tactical weapons. 4 minute citykillers, are really not needed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 03:44 pm (UTC)Is this true?
And if it is why are we paying for it, since we can't launch the nukes anyway?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 04:11 pm (UTC)Regardless, I think the argument would go, if we have them, then no one will mess with us, because WE GOT DA' BOMB!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 05:25 pm (UTC)If this scares you too much - Pratchett dialogue to the rescue!
(the following dialogue takes place between a grinning gentleman who uses repetitive dialogue and looking very tired of late and another individual standing in for their father whose resemblance to a chimpanzee is coincidental and of whom everybody else is just plain sick and tired.)
POTUK: Umm, about that red button.
POTUS: Oook?
POTUK: We'd like to press it.
POTUS: Oook (raised hands)
POTUK: Um, are you sure about annihilation, annihilation, annihilation?
POTUS: Oook! (pursed lips grin)
POTUK: Now, do you have the key?
POTUS: Oook! (attempts to extract key from backside)
POTUK: Stuck? Oh dear.
POTUS: Oook? (pleading pseudo-sincere pursed lips)
POTUK: This is - ridiculous.
POTUS: Oook... (really pleading pursed lips)
POTUK: Oh... go on then...
(fade out with snapping of rubber glove and suction cup noise followed by turning of keys, pressing of button and concommitant hysterical buying of canned foodstuffs and screeching about manifest destiny by Ms. A. Coulter of Whogivesafuck, CT)
...
(fade in)
POTUK: Oh God. What have I done?
POTUS(smoking cigarette): Oook.
POTUK: What do you mean we don't have to worry about Kyoto NOW?
POTUS: Oook. (thoughtful silence) Oook.
POTUK: Well I suppose there is that. And I won't have to dodge Murdoch either.
(fade to air raid sirens)