Do you support Trident/ HS2?

[GreersElbow]

Could we not scrap trident, falsify evidence that we have an even more deadly weapon. Deliberately leak information about said weapon onto wikileaks. We can sit back and drink mojitos whilst the world shits itself as to what Britain will do next. I personally prefer that.

Scrap them both, I don't think Russia's terrified of our arsenal.

 

[GT49er]

Whoosh it was tongue in cheek

Yes I know - but I still want to know who you're voting for so I don't make the same mistake!

 

[Chicken Run]

Yes to Trident (obviously) not bothered with Hs2.

 

[Chicken Run]

My option isn't on the list - keep the CURRENT trident and scrap HS2.

Did you vote to keep Polaris lol, the current Trident platform will be out of date in 20 years, you have start the planning for its replacement now FHS.

 

[Hillian1]

We need more nukes.

Not arsed about the trains.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Did you vote to keep Polaris lol, the current Trident platform will be out of date in 20 years, you have start the planning for its replacement now FHS.

But what does out of date mean ? Nobody has explained that.

Having worked in IT for many years I often get the question "My PC is 5/6/7 years old what should I replace it with ?" - my response is always, "is it broken then ?" - if it still does what you want and need it to then why replace it ?

So does and will the current Trident still provide a deterrent ? Can and will we still be able to fire the weapons ? Can we still maintain it ?

If the answer is yes to all of the above ( and I have no idea if it is because strangely the politicians don't talk about it in that way ) then surely it's reasonable just to keep what we have ?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Reluctantly yes to Trident - I'd rather we didn't have to have it, but I think we do. HS2 - no; wrong 'solution' entirely.

And yes, we do need to get promotion to get to the PL. Anyone know of another way?

Yes,Do a Wimbledon/MK Dons. Let's buy out Arsenal......

 

[Seagull on the wing]

But what does out of date mean ? Nobody has explained that.

Having worked in IT for many years I often get the question "I PC is 5/6/7 years old what should I replace it with ?" - my response is always, "is it broken then ?" - if it still does what you want and need it to then why replace it ?

So does and will the current Trident still provide a deterrent ? Can and will we still be able to fire the weapons ? Can we still maintain it ?

If the answer is yes to all of the above ( and I have no idea if it is because strangely the politicians don't talk about it in that way ) then surely it's reasonable just to keep what we have ?

Westdene mate,I think you will find Trident has far more range and destructive power and warheads whiuch can hit several different targets..even. I have updated my old mobile phone phone to an iphone because it holds more info. With the updating of Trident the cost is £30bn, but that is spread over 20 years lifetime.

 

[beorhthelm]

But what does out of date mean ? Nobody has explained that.

Having worked in IT for many years I often get the question "My PC is 5/6/7 years old what should I replace it with ?" - my response is always, "is it broken then ?" - if it still does what you want and need it to then why replace it ?

So does and will the current Trident still provide a deterrent ? Can and will we still be able to fire the weapons ? Can we still maintain it ?

If the answer is yes to all of the above ( and I have no idea if it is because strangely the politicians don't talk about it in that way ) then surely it's reasonable just to keep what we have ?

i sympathise with this view, i think theres a portion of "because we say its end of life" and a large dollop of cost of maintainability. as i understand it, its mostly about replacing the subs than the nuclear weapons and guidance systems. which means its a massive investment in ship building we dont hear much about in the discussions.

to use the IT as comparison, you've got that old Compaq or Sun server running an application, and its doing so fine as it has for 15 years. but its no longer supported and if you need parts they arent available, a maintenance contract costs more than buying a new server outright. now scale that up to bespoke engineering and nuclear weapons.

(this is why the Harriers went - no longer made and expense to maintain. the US brought them effectivly as spares or repairs for this reason)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No one has ever scene them, they never get fired, and the main argument is they deter. Can't we just pretend we have these weapons and save ourselves a few bob?

 

[Chicken Run]

But what does out of date mean ? Nobody has explained that.

Having worked in IT for many years I often get the question "My PC is 5/6/7 years old what should I replace it with ?" - my response is always, "is it broken then ?" - if it still does what you want and need it to then why replace it ?

So does and will the current Trident still provide a deterrent ? Can and will we still be able to fire the weapons ? Can we still maintain it ?

If the answer is yes to all of the above ( and I have no idea if it is because strangely the politicians don't talk about it in that way ) then surely it's reasonable just to keep what we have ?

HMS Vanguard (1st of 4) came into service in 1994 but was in the procurement stage in the Early 80's by 2034 the first of these platforms will be 40ys old, trust me they will need replacing, oh btw I did some time on S28.

 

[Chicken Run]

No one has ever scene them, they never get fired, and the main argument is they deter. Can't we just pretend we have these weapons and save ourselves a few bob?

Good shout but alas I fear the Russian SS probably have one or two bods on the payroll deep inside BAE[emoji3]

 

[Triggaaar]

Who does Trdent protect and who pays for it?

The UK and France are the only European countries with nuclear weapons. Obviously if the UK were attacked with nuclear weapons, then whoever attacked us would also be attacked. But what if someone nuked Germany or Italy for example - do we do nothing, or is there an agreement that we would retaliate to such an attack?

 

[Triggaaar]

No one has ever scene them, they never get fired, and the main argument is they deter. Can't we just pretend we have these weapons and save ourselves a few bob?

As I have said before, how do you know that's not what we're doing?

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I don't know why people want to spend so much money on a weapon that we will never use. Do you really think that we could get away with, or wish to, obliterate another country - whatever the circumstances ?
Would any P M fire it without the say so of Washington?
No normal country is going to lob a nuclear bomb our way , it is not going to happen. If a crazy terrorist got hold of one, we would not blame his home country .....

Trident is a waste of money . I see no need for HS2 either on this small island. Spend more money on the commuter trains that we all use

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As I have said before, how do you know that's not what we're doing?

I'll keep quiet.

The UK could probably do the same with the rail project; trains are so slow and crap you could just paint HIGH SPEED TRAIN in big white letters on the side of any loco and no one would be any wiser.