Nuclear defence???

Seems that the £41 Billion we're due to commit to renew our nuclear submarine deterrent may well be redundant before the first keel of these submarines are laid.

If that is the case, what's the point of building and launching them and having nuclear missiles aboard that not only can be seen, but targetted too??

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6900486.html

Re: Nuclear defence???

Hi

If this the case, why is Corbyn talking about building them but only arming them with non nuclear missiles?

I am personally totally against Trident, but only because it is not ours.

We can only launch with American permission.

The French however, have a totally independent Nuclear Deterrent, which makes much more sense.

Re: Nuclear defence???

We are never going to use nuclear weapons, no one will ever push he button so why spend money on them I cannot understand.

Re: Nuclear defence???

Since the report has yet to be presented to the Commons Defence Select Committee, the report clearly post-dates JJeremy Corbyn's views on the use of the previously nuclear missile submarines. We could of course, save ourselves the full £41 Billion by not only not bbuilding the submarines at all, but also not buying the upgraded missiles from the Americans.

Re: Nuclear defence???

I know that I'm naïve and an idealist but defining nuclear weapons as a "defense" makes me feel ill.

Re: Nuclear defence???

You're right. No-one will ever push the button whilst both sides have them. That's how they work.

I'm sure, though, that the Russians or Chinese - or even more likely (if theirs work) the North Koreans - would push their buttons if we, the Yanks and the Frogs didn't have ours.

Re: Nuclear defence???

Cart before the horse, I'd say. The U.S. is the only nation who've nuked another one, which I might add was long before other nations even had nukes. So your comment makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

Re: Nuclear defence???

On the contrary, it makes absolute sense.

Re: Nuclear defence???

I agree I can't see anyone but USA doing it and I like to believe they regretted it after they did it last time. Much more likely to be a chemical attack than nuclear.

Re: Nuclear defence???

Don't think they regretted it at all, they revelled in it.