Forums Forums General Forums A - Z Lifestyle Do we need Trident?

I think the clue is in the word "deterrent".

But it can only be a deterrent if there is a situation where it is to our advantage to press the button.

Or would we press the button when it is not to our advantage?

One of those two sentences has got to be true for it to be an effective deterrent and that is why I just don't understand it as neither case makes any sense.

Why are nukes so important? The same amount of money and effort hasn't gone into very high power military lasers which would be a million times quicker and more effective and flexible in defensive and offensive roles with the greater advantage that they don't pollute the earth nor cause mass destruction and deaths.

If we opt out of Europe, maybe we won't have it. Scotland will stay with EU and they won't have it. Blair is asking the public to think carefully about the referendum because if we vote for out, then Scotland could leave the Union.

If Scotland want to leave us , good luck to them. Their choice why should we vote according to what they want ?

Still can't understand how just Scotland gets a vote on breaking up the union, surely all of the union should be able to vote?

It doesn't make any sense for Scotland to separate, its more about political careers than nations.

Oh dear, our hugely expensive nuclear deterrent Trident has failed in the last two UK test firings. Far from being a deterrent it is making us a laughing stock for being dependent on unreliable American equipment.

The American's have had failed Trident test firings as well, the number is kept secret but is thought to be around ten.

We are also in the process of building new submarines for Trident at huge cost. On average our 35 year nuclear deterrent program which is based entirely around Trident costs us around £5bn a year (and increasing).

Don't expect another UK test fire soon, the last two were eight years apart because of the cost of throwing a Trident away each time. We initially had fourteen Tridents earmarked for test firings, having fired twelve we have two remaining test Tridents left

It should be noted that Trident is purely the transporting rocket, the UK warheads and submarines are not part of the American Trident programme. A trident can carry eight Holbrook warheads, each Vanguard submarine can carry up to sixteen Tridents and we have four submarines. That would indicate a full operational capacity of 64 Tridents with 512 warheads however we only plan to stock around 50 operational Tridents and (eventually) 260 warheads.

Between 400 and 500 roles will be made redundant under new proposals for the factories that make the UK's Trident nuclear warheads.

And yet further down in the article it says the overall headcount will not be reduced.

I’m confused.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0yr6jpwjlo

Roles and heads, it will be the usual exercise of using lower skilled, lower paid workers to do virtually the same job. MOD, NHS, Police etc have been through this process now it's AWE's turn (again?).

Prospect Union haven't always been the best at fighting the impact of these cuts. The Union was created by the rhetoric that the bigger the Union the more powerful it is but in practice they are often representing both sides of a divide (the old workers and the replacement workers) so have a complicated division of interests.