( One minute read)

The logic is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK because, even if the nation’s conventional defence capabilities were destroyed, the silent submarine would still be able to launch a catastrophic retaliatory strike on the aggressor, a concept known as mutually assured destruction.Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine

Supporters of replacement argue that threats from rogue states and terrorist groups could emerge at any time and a minimum nuclear deterrent is needed to help counter them.

The nuclear defence industry is also a major employer.

Some estimates suggest that up to 15,000 jobs may be lost – as well as considerable expertise – if a new batch of submarines was not commissioned.

Object on ethical grounds say the UK should never be a country that is willing to threaten or use nuclear weapons against an adversary, even in the most extreme circumstances and that the humanitarian consequences of doing that would be so grotesque as to be unfathomable.

The UK should not be spending possibly £40bn on a programme that is designed for uncertainty and indeed that an “uncertain future threat environment” may mean no threats arise and so £40bn would have been spent unnecessarily.The Royal Navy nuclear submarine HMS Vanguard, arrives at Devonport naval base in Plymouth for refit

Renewing Trident would show Britain was “committed” to working with Nato allies after voting for Brexit.  Replacing Trident was a Tory manifesto pledge in the general election.

£31bn over the lifetime of the programme, including adjustment for inflation over that period, and an additional £10bn as a “contingency”.

The UK is the only nuclear weapons state that deploys submarines as its sole nuclear weapons delivery platform.

However, critics argue Britain is technically so dependent on the US that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a port in the Georgia, US, and some warhead components are also made in America.

As part of the renewal, common missile compartment systems that could be fitted into both UK and US submarines are set to be developed as a means of saving money.

HERE IS WHAT THE BEADY EYE THINKS.

A COUNTRY THAT HAS JUST VOTED TO LEAVE AN ORGANISATION (WHICH WAS SET UP TO STOP WARS), HAS NOW WITHOUT A REFERENDUM ADOPTED ON THE VOTE OF 300 ODD MP AND A NON ELECTED PRIME MINISTER TO SPEND £31bn ON A NUCLEAR DETERRENT NEEDS TO HAVE ITS HEAD EXAMINED.Afficher l'image d'origine

CONSIDERING:

THAT IT CANNOT SUPPORT ITS OWN HEALTH SYSTEM.

That benefits and pensions payouts is around £217 billion 2015/2016, 29% of public spending.

THAT THERE IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF INFRASTRUCTURE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, HIGH SPEED TRANSPORT AND HOME BUILDING, NEVER MIND THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE FREE EDUCATION.

THAT IT HAS JUST SEEN ITS MAJOR HIGH TECH COMPANY BOUGHT BY AN JAPANESE.

THAT IT HAS RAMPANT INEQUALITY.

What we clearly see is a country moving at full speed toward a disaster.

As I have said there is no point to a Nuclear Deterrent other than mutually assured destruction.

Here are a few pictures to remind you how has and who could and had their finger on the button.

 

Afficher l'image d'origine Afficher l'image d'origine

Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine Afficher l'image d'origine

Advertisements