Always_a_Civvy said:If we are going to have a nuclear deterrent it should be genuinely independent - and that's far too costly. I think we need a nuclear deterrent but these days one delivered by aircraft would be a much more cost effective option and the savings could be invested in the Forces.
In reality they would be invested in tax cuts, over-costly PFI projects or paying for consultants to tell government what its own staff could tell it, were they asked.
Always_a_Civvy said:If we are going to have a nuclear deterrent it should be genuinely independent - and that's far too costly. I think we need a nuclear deterrent but these days one delivered by aircraft would be a much more cost effective option and the savings could be invested in the Forces.
In reality they would be invested in tax cuts, over-costly PFI projects or paying for consultants to tell government what its own staff could tell it, were they asked.
stumpy said:Seriously though, a nuclear detterent has to be submarine based, if it is land or airbased (they have to land) it would be vulnerable to a surprise attack. Also, planes can be shot down.
TattooDog said:Why bother with the nause that is PFI?
Why not contract out the nuclear deterrent to a Private Military Companies - you know, like we've done with companies such as Aegis, Executive Outcomes, Sandline etc.
Let P&O and Brittany Ferries have Trident - they can have the V Boats to go with them too.
Jimmy_Green said:Why not contract out our nuclear deterrent to India? After all, they're doing everything else. We could ring into one of their call centres, give them the co-ordinates and let them fire it for us.