We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Farewell Trident, hello...?


Forum Editor

Likes # 0

The hatchet man cometh

Is it just me wondering what on earth goes on in Nick Clegg's mind at times?

Like this post
OTT_B

Likes # 0

To be fair to Nick Clegg (and I may be the only person in the UK at the moment who is!), he needs to regain control and respect within the Lib Dems.

The overall consensus in the party is that Trident should be a no-go, and Danny Alexander appears to be fairly popular and apparently dislikes Trident.

Putting Danny Alexander in to review Trident is a win-win for Clegg.

Since the Lib Dems are unlikely ever to be able to block Trident again, it all makes little difference.

Like this post
Nontek

Likes # 0

I don't think even Nick Clegg knows!

I am glad I will not be here when the next 'balloon' goes up, though I am worried about my grand-kids.

Like this post
Strawballs

Likes # 0

Why replace something that is already capable of overkill, we would be better spending the money on conventional defence.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

The trouble is in identifying the threat.

When it was the big bad soviet bear it was all clear cut, ICBMs, and when the detection and defence got too good, ballistic bombs, and now sub sea missiles which can be launched close in, giving less time for defence (hence the necessity for standing submarine patrols, and the stupidity of cutting back out maritime surveillance forces).

Now, of course, the main threat seems to be Iran, perhaps not so sophisticated but more unstable.

This time last year it could have been Libya, this time next year it could be Syria. Even Argentina might like to wave a nuclear stick over the Falklands.

Once we know what the threat is now, and what it might be in five, ten or twenty years we will be able to decide if we actually need a deterrent, and, if so, what form it will take.

Quite frankly I don't think Alexander is up to the job.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

As I said, I don't know enough about defence systems to be able to make an informed judgement, but it would seem to me that if a threat is a possibility from any one of a number of widely separated locations, a patrolling nuclear submarine fleet is the ideal deterrent/response system.

These vessels can be within launch range of almost any viable threat location fairly rapidly, and deliver a potent strike if necessary - they appear to me to be the ideal big stick.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

Since the end of the Cold War, who would we nuke? I know who I think should be nuked, but I doubt that we'd get away with that.

The cost of Trident's drain on resources could surely solve of national financial crisis, and as such place us in a better all round position economically.

Like this post
KRONOS the First

Likes # 0

Quickbeam

Quite true and well said. The obscene amount of money this so called deterrents costs could be better used elsewhere. How about spending a tiny fraction of it in improving living quarters for our troops? or perhaps making sure they have the best personal kit and protection they need? The ridiculous situation where we sent our armed forces to Iraq and Afghanistan ill equipped for the conditions was a national scandal.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"obscene "

Official definition - "Likely to deprave or corrupt".

Don't really see it myself, but perhaps I'm wearing my rose tints again.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Chronus

Are you in a position to know that the money spent on maintaining the nuclear fleet could be 'better' spent elsewhere? It could obviously be spent elsewhere, but better? That's a judgement that can only be made by those qualified to make it.

You might prefer that it was used for other purposes, but that's an entirely different thing. Defence spending is always a tricky subject, and neither you nor I can know about the threat levels posed by different countries. We can't know because we don't have access to the intelligence information required.

We are an island nation, and in order to deter would be aggressors we need to have a strike capabilitythat is either airborne or seaborne, or both. Carriers fit that bill, but at the moment we have no effective Carrier force. We have a nuclear submarine fleet however, and in my view it would be folly to abandon it at a time when tension in the Middle East is at its present level.

Like this post
KRONOS the First

Likes # 0

Official definition

Pedantic or what?

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

The 30 best TV shows on Netflix UK: Our pick of the best programmes you can watch right now

IDG UK Sites

Nostalgia time: Top 10 best selling mobile phones in history

IDG UK Sites

VFX Emmy: Game of Thrones work garners gong for Rodeo FX

IDG UK Sites

Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina review (2.6GHz, 128GB, mid-2014)