hijo 18:21 03 Dec 2006

polltax/gas/electricity/cartax/tv License nearly EVERYTHING that can go up is or has gone up,it effects everyone's pocket & is the goverment been sencible about where its going or what on...??
have a look
click here

  Forum Editor 18:32 03 Dec 2006

whenever the subject comes up. Certain areas of the world are becoming increasingly unsettled, and with the nuclear weapons 'club' potentially gaining new, and not altogether UK-friendly members it might be said that now is not the time for us to be laying aside a nuclear weapons capability.

Nuclear submarines are arguably the most effective deterrent of all, in that they represent a mobile, rapidly deployable force,one which can put itself within range of any target on the planet without refuelling.

Building costs are huge, but the money will stay almost entirely within the UK economy, and on balance I'm very much in favour of replacing our nuclear subs. In a potentially hostile world it doesn't do any harm to go softly and carry a big stick.

  Bingalau 19:43 03 Dec 2006

Winston Churchill would have approved and would probably have been pushing to increase our defences. I also think we need a thick red line not a thin one. Rudyard Kipling knew the score when he wrote the words "It's Tommy this and it's Tommy that, when the guns begin to roar.... etc. Wise men who knew how things really are. We need all the deterrents we can get. ..Bingalau..

  WhiteTruckMan 19:57 03 Dec 2006

then why not just buy/build new boats for the existing missiles. i can understand improvements in sub technology making newer electronics and plant equipment desireable, but whats wrong with keeping the missiles. It may or may not be possible to intercept an icbm with the latest weapons tech, but when you think of the types of nation state that we keep a deterrent against, they are hardly likely to possess. much less afford to build, this level of weapons.

Its not like the missiles actually wear out, unless someone has been a bit too keen with the duraglit, polishing them up for inspection and polished them a bit too thin.


  The Brigadier 20:03 03 Dec 2006

The current class of Nuclear submarines are either out on patrol or in dock awaiting servicing. The purpose of having new subs will be to act as a deterent for longer. More info can be found click here

  hijo 20:05 03 Dec 2006

i agree with the above post's we SHOULD protect our country & i suppose i can say "at whatever the cost's" as if we dont things could turn bizzare & very worring for us,it is true the "sub's" are one seriousy expensive lump of steel & i suppose the money could be spent on lots of other things that the UK is lacking (but iam not going to bicker on about it),given the option i would would look into what "WTM" said why not upgrade the gear we already got....but iam just one of the little people :-)

  Wilham 21:49 03 Dec 2006

If the West can learn anything at all from the suicide bomber I hope it is the obsolescence of gunboat diplomacy. Today we fight for hearts and minds, and the most powerful of our weapons in this are open honesty, reason with fairness, and mutual respect for high principles.

Could any supporter of this nuclear upgrade imagine any situation at all where it would be fired? Wouldn't firing it reduce you to the level of the suicide bomber?

  Bingalau 21:55 03 Dec 2006

I don't think suicide bombers would ever contemplate a hearts and minds strategy. ..Bingalau..

  facepaint 22:12 03 Dec 2006

Do people realise that we would pay and host these nuclear weapons but the USA be in charge of the weapons security codes.

So if in the future we became a pure socialist country ,it is plain that the US would refuse to release these codes even if we needed them to so-called 'defend' ourselves.

Strange why our PM is rushing the decisions for these new WMD. Legacy comes to mind plus profits and not prophets.In the end we all pay and have no say.

  Forum Editor 22:30 03 Dec 2006

I think you're missing the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. It's not that we contemplate firing the missiles, it's that others, who might be less reticent, would be deterred from firing on us if they thought we had the capability for retaliation.

You make the mistake of assuming that others, from other cultures, respect someone who goes unarmed into an arena - they don't, they percieve it as a weakness, and will exploit the situation. It's not about 'hearts and minds' it's about deep-rooted convictions and hatred. We have to proceed on those terms.

  Forum Editor 22:40 03 Dec 2006

We're talking about an independent nuclear weapons system here - America will have nothing to do with 'weapons seccurity codes'. If a British nuclear submarine ever had to fire its missiles it would do so on the direct order of the British Prime Minister, and no-one else.

It's worth bearing in mind that the new submarines will not come into service for quite a long time - probably not for around fifteen to sixteen years. It takes a long time to design, construct, and test new vessels and weapons of this complexity. In the meantime we'll still have Trident missiles inside the current Vanguard class submarines.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?

Microsoft Surface Book 2 hands-on review – bigger and 5x faster

Best kids apps for iPhone & iPad

Que faire si son iPhone ou iPad est tombé dans de l'eau ?