S
We can perhaps go further in reducing the number of warheads
notafourknotfudgepacker said:"There are many other ways we can provide a meaningful nuclear deterrent short of four dedicated submarines solely for that purpose."
Like what exactly?
Nick Clegg said:.... a number of other alternatives, for example, military experts will now tell you that it is a perfectly realistic option to use the existing Astute Class submarines and equip them with nuclear tipped missiles. On the other extreme you could use the urrrr, you could pursue the urrr, Japanese option where you retain the ability to urrr, urrr, have a nuclear deterrent in a very short space of time, in about 6 months, in other words you maintain a capacity to mobilise a nuclear deterrent but don't actually have one fully ready to go on day one. Or you could quite simply accept that the premise of the Trident system, that you have an 'at-sea' deterrent every single minute, of every single day, of every single week, of every single month, throughout the year is no longer necesarry. In other words you have a deterrent which is not deployed at sea all the time. There are a range of different alternatives, which we've set out in detail.
Agreed, submarines are currently the best method available. Every argument I've read is either untenable or is along the lines of having enough allies that we could rely on one of them to kick off the whole assured mutual destruction deal.notafourknotfudgepacker said:"There are many other ways we can provide a meaningful nuclear deterrent short of four dedicated submarines solely for that purpose."
Like what exactly?
fishhead said:... admittedly is eye watering ...
OSLO said:fishhead said:... admittedly is eye watering ...
To quote Liam Fox, compare the cost of Trident replacement against the London Olympics. Same money, but one lasts for 30 years, the other for 2 weeks. No contest.
Scouse_Castaway said:And the Olympics are more likely to be a national embarrassment