With labour looking to rid us of our nuclear weapons and Conservatives trying to ensure we keep them who do you think is right?

Labour is saying that we wouldnt need them in 2020 as things will change but who knows what the future holds.

I am totally for keeping nuclear weapons and hope to god we keep them to defend our nation. I think enough has already been shaven off our armed forces enough. If they want to make cuts then bring back national service to help.

Nukes are a joke. No western nation that has them would ever use them, but if they got rid of them would feel vulnerable anyway.


Perhaps they are a deterrent, but theyre not a weapons system thats gonna actually be used.

Just scrap them and tell Korea and Iran that you still got them, and theyre studlier and with extra pleasure ridges now.

Nuclear submanrines are very expensive to run and the money could be spent elsewhere. The present submarines could easily be refurbished if they were needed beyond that date.

Better to have them and not need them than to not have them and need them.

Nuclear weapons these days are not for a pre-emptive strike, they are basically "If we are gonna die, we will take you with us" to stop other people from just nuking us as they know they cant win without massive casualties themselves.

We are no longer a prime target for any nuclear capable nation as most of those that have them or are building them are either our neighbours/friends or are not interested us and they are there for a reason (ie pakistan/india)

We are much more vunerable to terrorists than a nation firing missles upon us. And you cannot retaliate with a nuclear strike against a terrorist organisation as you can against a nation.

My vote is against nuclear weapons.

As long as other countries have them I think we should keep them as id hate to be caught with our pants down.

Quote from: DaveBetter to have them and not need them than to not have them and need them.

At best they are a deterrent and, TBH, they arent a very good one. Nobody is interested in invading the UK anyway. It could be better spent on other things, even the TA...

Thatcher came close to using one in the falklands conflict. There could well be a future use against Iran - simply the threat of its use is a massive advantage - ti isnt just a deterrant & given the other countries developing them it is naive to think that they dont have a use any more. Thier use isnt limited to the cold war detterant/mutually assured destruction anymore - we are not in the cold war & russia isnt really trying to kill us anymore.

Quote from: SeriousAt best they are a deterrent and, TBH, they arent a very good one. Nobody is interested in invading the UK anyway. It could be better spent on other things, even the TA...

And look at the mess they got themselves into when they cut back on the TA... they have made some pretty silly mistakes & getting rid of nukes would be bloody stupid - we are better off scrapping this whole Joint strike fighter crap with the yanks & cutting back on the eurofighter.

think how much moneys been spent on them over the years... the development, the bunkers, the upkeep etc... what a waste to scrap em, might as well use em up and get our monies worth  :-o

ok, so people would get pissed at us for using them against there firneds etc.... but lets face it, no one likes the french anyway  :wink:

Quote from: Dave

Quote from: SeriousAt best they are a deterrent and, TBH, they arent a very good one. Nobody is interested in invading the UK anyway. It could be better spent on other things, even the TA...

And look at the mess they got themselves into when they cut back on the TA... they have made some pretty silly mistakes & getting rid of nukes would be bloody stupid - we are better off scrapping this whole Joint strike fighter crap with the yanks & cutting back on the eurofighter.

We would still have the present submarines, they should be easy enough to update. Generally military equipment is continually getting more expensive which might not be the best option.

We need more well trained soldiers, dispite the tongue the TA are as good as any.

Quote from: Alan1but lets face it, no one likes the french anyway  :wink:

Hmm, make Paris glow  

QuoteBritain must replace its nuclear deterrent, the Conservative Party says.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the UK must maintain its four Trident missile submarines "for as long as possible" before replacing them.

Dr Fox told the BBC a new deterrent was needed because it was the best way to ensure no other country launches a nuclear strike.

His comments came days after MPs began an inquiry into Trident, which is expected to be obsolete by 2020.

"We have to replace [Trident] because there are states in the world still trying to get nuclear weapons," said Dr Fox.

"The best guarantee of them not being used is for Britain to have an independent deterrent."

The House of Commons defence committee is taking evidence from a range of experts about the type of threat the UK might face in 20 years time.

The cost of replacing the UKs four submarines armed with Trident missiles could reach Ã,£20bn, according to some estimates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4822758.stm

So someone sails into London with a bomb hidden on a ship and sets it off, who ya gonna blame? who gets the reprisal?

Personally im for more weapons testing.

A tactical nuclear weapon need not bring death to a 300mile radius

A tactical nuclear weapon could be developed to co-exist with existing technologies. Imagine a rather powerful grenade? Useful for battling against cave dwelling terrorists (afganistan), either they get killed, irradiated, or suffocate to death when the mouth of the cave collapses. No need to risk our boys lives in dingy caves.

Smaller bunker buster bombs. Can penetrate reinforced bunkers, and have a smaller payload yet equally powerful, Allowing more weight to be put into penetration mechanisms (more effective at busting bunkers).

The future isnt trident, nor cruise missiles. The future is smaller bombs, higher or the same rating of power, being more effective at what they do. Why use cluster bombs to clear airfields, use a small nuke to destroy the tarmac. Granted they will irradiate a large area and dust can be carried on the wind... but used sensibly they are as useful as the more usual payloads.

Re-open weapons testing on limited sized nuclear weapons. (No more super H bomb bollocks, lets actually think of a legitimate use for these weapons.)

There isnt a legitimate use for these weapons and theres a minimum size that can be used. Unless you were trying for th satyrical method?  :mrgreen:

Nukes.. a defence? how so? they are all about retaliation or attack