Search results

I could dig them out, but key American defence staff and some diplomats have been on record as saying that if they had to make a preference, they would actually like to see the UK have a better equipped military force, lets say 50% of the Trident expenditure goes on our armed forces over the...

Diplomatically at least, the US have stated that they don't even need the UK as a nuclear power, that actually they'd be happier if we actually beefed up our military capabilities as a working military partner rather than maintaining a nuclear capability it knows we really can't afford.

The independent cross party Trident commission report stated: that Britain's deterrent is “a hostage to American goodwill.” It adds: “If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather...

What I am surprised with is that none of the Pro-Trident posters have actually put forward the real reason for renewing Trident - that it is a continuation of our close alliance with the US that on their request we maintain a nuclear capability in support of a global peacekeeping deterrent as...

It's not my point, you came up with the daft crime analogy. Reading your posts is how I'd imagine talking to someone who'd be cryogenically frozen since 1957 would sound as they've just woken up...

Isn't that, on the same token like having the death penalty where surely no one would break the law seriously enough that they would risk ending their life!? That is why America is almost serious crime free, it works as a deterrent...

No of course they wouldn't, it is an excellent arrangement for them to effectively have a satellite nuclear capability for which they supply the warheads, the technology, most of the maintenance etc. the missiles themselves can only be serviced in the port of Georgia. This is far from an...

That wasn't a nuclear armed sub - and the idea of Trident is that no one knows where they are! It was well known that Thatcher was advised to keep more ships down there, but given the state of the economy and the cuts she was making, she left the Falklands effectively unguarded. The irony of...

Hide behind America - are you joking? They're pulling our defence strings to this very day. Our entire defence spending is based on what they want us to do and the size of force they want us to have. As soon as we cut defence spending who sticks their oar in!? . The majority of our own...

If it's a 'deterrent' then you only need them to have them. It has already stopped being a deterrent if you need them to be fired. Even taking 50% of the huge budget required to maintain Trident could make our actual usable defence much stronger. We lose men on the ground because their...

It didn't bother Leopoldo Galtieri...

What you have to ask yourself, is whether our 200 or so warheads is the deterrent, or whether our allies 5000 warheads are? How do we sit at diplomatic tables saying to countries they cannot develop their own when we are renewing the effectiveness of ours? Is it enough that the US and France...

Your argument should ask what would have happened if Hitler had them as well? Would there actually have been annihilation because clearly he wasn't a rational man, and neither was Stalin for that matter. Someone else having them may not have been a deterrent to them, it would have been a...