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.
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.
I think the threat of a decisive strike back is a fairly strong deterrent. I suspect it is when you are without nuclear weapons that you feel more threatened or intimidated by the countries that do. I suspect this is one of many factors in the complex Middle East scenario between Israel and Iran.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that The Guy. This quite an understandable reaction. But it only takes one psycho that's foolish enough to make the first strike (more likely a terrorist than a country leader - it would have to be a fanatic, because people are less likely to murder millions over a political difference than over a religious one). Take away nuclear and we are left with conventional weapons, which only manage to kill hundreds instead of tens of thousands.
ReplyDeleteRay