Why Is The Future of Britain’s Nuclear Deterrent Being Debated at the Moment?

Taken from (British) Social Media Party:
Why the Nuclear Deterrent Has Had Its Day!!

One year after the expected date of the next election - sometime in 2016 - the UK will be making the decision of to commit about £20 billion to replace the four Vanguard submarines (which will be approaching the termination of their service), each of which carries a Trident D5 missile.

A Trident missile armed Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine leaving its base in the Firth of Clyde. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since 1994, these four submarines and their nuclear weapons system have provided the UK's main deterrent. The question is, is Trident really a deterrent - or merely a political insurance policy?

If a country like Iran or North Korea should launch a nuclear attack on Britain, then four Triden D5's wouldn't stop the barrage of weapons that would expectedly be thrown at us. So why do we have them?

The answer is a simple one. To strike back and cause damage to any aggressor that might think to wipe us out. Vanguard has the ability to take Trident close enough to hart any aggressor.

They doesn't really protect, they might deter slightly, but that are good for retaliation. "Wipe us out," they threaten, "and you'll regret it!" That's as bad a a dog that barks at a burger after he's robbed your house.

The truth about the nuclear deterrent is: it isn't one at all. No sane person wants to go down in history for pressing the button; and wiping out thousands of innocent individuals. Nuclear isn't like a missile that can take out a specific military target - it burns indiscriminately, men women and children alike. A Trident D5 is powerful enough to destroy a major capital city (like New York). There are no winners in a nuclear strike - not even the aggressor.

During the 1980's, Labour were commitment to unilateral disarmament. However, the 1983 elections put pay to their plans; and from the moment Tony Blair took on leadership of the party, Labour's stance on defence toughened.

English: United States Trident II (D-5) missile underwater launch. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Conservatives stance is to back full Trident replacement. The Liberal Democrats want something else, a policy that is distinct and radical; a less elaborate deterrent might suffice. (Whatever that less-elaborate-deterrent might be is still unclear.) Ed Miliband has not said where he wants to take Labour - concerning the nuclear deterrent.

£20bn in capital expenditure is a cost that Britain can ill afford.

We have a rare opportunity to make a radical change.

Britain PLC

Do They Intend to Privatise Great Britain?

---

21st century Britain is quietly been sold-off, part-by-part, to the private sector and no one seems to have noticed. Except you’re truly of course.

The problem of having public assets (or state-run ownership) is they are rich for the picking by the private sector. They are cash-cows, perfect for breaking apart and asset stripping.

Politics of Tarot

---

For me, the thing that’s in my mind right now
is G4S and the shambolic Olympic Games security.

For anyone who hasn’t heard –and where have you been for the last week? On Mars?– the problems G4S Group have been having are major, and the repercussions are inevitable.

As I sit here, I pull THE CHARIOT for ‘past’: the card of movement.

G4S Debacle Continues

OLYMPICS: Have Police Saved G4S Security Crisis?

Of the 12 police forces around the Olympics venue, 9 are believed to have been drafted in to shore-up the shortfall in G4S security staff at the 2012 Games.

Olympic Police
Pic: Daily Mail

Sky News have reported that the police have “deployed hundreds of officers” – but that might change in the next few days.

The Police National Olympic Security Coordinator, Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, says that plans “were put in place” so that the police officers could deploy these officers, because  “delivering a safe and secure Games is priority…”

RAF On Standby

RAF & Navy On Standby -
But No Know Threat? ... So Far...

After reports yesterday that G4S have a shortfall in security guards, London 2012 chairman, Lord Coe, told BBC Radio 5 live.

"The reality is ... G4S expected people to materialise ... when they didn't ... we moved very quickly to fill that gap,"

"We will work very hard, we will remedy this - security will not be compromised..."

Lord Coe said he would not comment whether Mr Buckles should quit, saying it was "not" for him to "speculate on."

From 14th July a month of airspace restrictions (of about 30 miles wide) were imposed around London and south-east England, which should not affect commercial air flights.