The Guardian reports that the two parties in the United Kingdom's coalition government are split on the issue of whether to replace Trident, the submarine-based nuclear deterrant which at the moment consists of aging submarines which will reach the end of their lives soon.
It's estimated that replacing the subs will cost £20bn ($32bn US) to replace, which to put things into perspective is about four times the government funding given to universities each year, at least before the higher education reforms.
The Liberal Democrats in the coalition government are generally pacifists and believe we don't need nuclear weapons in this day and age, while the Conservatives think it's necessary for national security. This kind of dispute was certain to arise in a coalition between two parties on opposite sides of the political compass.
Personally, this blogger would argue that nuclear superweapons will never be used again as long as there's a country which can fire back, although with the threat of extremists its probably wise to maintain some level of deterrant.
I'd like to hear people's views on nuclear weapons in the comments.
I think that nuclear weapons are more for showing strength, no country gonna use them because they know the others can fight back. The terrorists are the biggets threat in my view, if some of them can get their hands in a nuclear weapon it can go very wrong.
ReplyDeleteterrible especial when you take into account that they just doubled i think it was the tuition in the UK. As for nukes i think more research should be done into using it for power generation and into the ability for powerful weapons but not necesarrily build the weapon.
ReplyDeleteWow thats alot of money for replacing, but if this is a good investment for the safety of civilians, they should do it.
ReplyDeleteThey don't need any nukes.
ReplyDeleteThey don't need nukes. Nukes are too over power imo.
ReplyDeleteI think that a nuclear deterrent is definately needed in this day and age. I doubt they will ever be used but I would rather have and don't need than need and don't have.
ReplyDeleteif you can't decide, do it. In this case, i would rather build something actually useful in peace time...
ReplyDeleteRemember what Einstein said. World War 4 will be fought with clubs and rocks.
ReplyDeleteBy now we could already have a nuke-free world.
ReplyDeleteThe UK needs nukes!
ReplyDeleteThe government like lining their own pockets before giving the people what we need though.
No wonder we are in such a mess.
''Personally, this blogger would argue that nuclear superweapons will never be used again as long as there's a country which can fire back''
ReplyDeleteWell said, If your government stops making nukes, and all other countries do this aswell, soon there WILL NO LONGER BE any country which can ''fire back''....
But they could shrink their force and save a little dime for the education of producing cheaper nukes/subs :)
I say speak softly but carry a big stick. We need the nukes as a show of power.
ReplyDeleteThey should scrap em, I really dont see the point.
ReplyDeleteWhy nukes...just buy flowers and give them to everyone...with bees!! mwhuhahahah
ReplyDeletewe will never have a nuke free world, everyone will keep some. no one will totally disarm in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteBritain needs some nukes! If aliens come they will be able to fight back.
ReplyDeleteYou always need nukes... there always has to be a mutually assured level of destruction. There will always BE nukes but the threat of superpowers nuking each other is hopefully over. Obviously the new threat is from dirty bombs and nuke'ish type weapons coming from terrorist organizations and rogue countries (North Korea).
ReplyDeleteWell, I generally dislike spending additional money on military matters.
ReplyDeleteNuke power is earth friend
ReplyDeletenuke is the new gold rush for most part of country
ReplyDeleteif you have nuke, you've power, that's maybe why WW3 will be soon, Europe/US VS new nuke country (iran, ...)
Great blog! Followed
ReplyDeleteNUKE IT lul jk
ReplyDeleteEh nukes... everybody has em, everybody sez they don't >:3
ReplyDeletebut spending more money on universitys would be a fail wouldn't it as encourageing more young adults to go to university reduces the workforce we need to do the crap jobs that university graduates don't expect to do like the esseitial jobs like working in supermarkets and working at petrol stations and food packing
ReplyDeleteHow about concentrating on sorting out the air force recruitment joke. Every recruit was made redundant recently even if they were a DAY away from completing the course! Piss take
ReplyDeleteNo one is going to use nukes anyway, why upkeep so many of them. What's the point?
ReplyDeleteKinda cheap, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThat's money we don't have and can't pay, it's just that simple.
ReplyDeleteI saw that China is also making new weapons so we better watch out more them.
ReplyDeletewe need a ballistic nuclear capability to have the option of being pacifists...god damn liberals
ReplyDeleteAn intercontinental/land based option would be too easily targeted/countered if the worst came to the worst...
Having said that they're getting very good at tracking subs these days with sats
You only need so many nukes as a deterrent. They could only replace half the subs and still have enough firepower to destroy our planet.
ReplyDeleteDont think we need nukes.. America alone has enough nukes to kill everyone 7 times...
ReplyDeleteDon't need nukes. What we need is some way to combat home-grown terrorism.
ReplyDeletewe dont need nukes!!
ReplyDeletethere should be some kind of limit how many nukes a country can have
Nice post!!! I wait on my blog!!!
ReplyDelete$upporting BRO!!!
TBH at this point UK kind of needs to have them, as much as I don't agree with any country owning nukes, everyone already does now so its more of a defense thing, almost like guns in the US.
ReplyDelete