Cuts to welfare or trident ??

[alchresearch]

How do you know they haven't already done that, maybe Trident can't be cut because it’s already been cut?

 

Heh heh, clever!

 

But which has more value, ensuring the needy are clothed and fed, or weapons for fighting? I'd hate to see a child go hungry just so we can be tooled up to fight in the next war which isn't any of our business.

 

You'd think that as the human race progresses there would be less and less a need for military.

[Manlinose]

S

 

Is it still necessary for a deterrent in this day and age?

 

and who is it deterring and what is it deterring them from doing?

[MrSmith]

Heh heh, clever!

 

But which has more value, ensuring the needy are clothed and fed, or weapons for fighting? I'd hate to see a child go hungry just so we can be tooled up to fight in the next war which isn't any of our business.

 

You'd think that as the human race progresses there would be less and less a need for military.

 

There are many less important things that can be cut before defence is cut.

 

With the world population increasing and its resources depleting it won't be long before we are fighting over them. Animals have always fought for their own survival.

[alchresearch]

And ironically its the US - one of our strongest allies - which consumes the most resources!

[taxman]

Trident is just a vanity project. Prestige on the world stage "Ooh look at us, we're big boys because we've got a missile that could wipe out entire cities"

 

As others have pointed out, who is it deterring? Certainly not those responsible for the July 7th bombings, and they are by far and away the most likely people to want to attack the UK in future.

 

A deterrent is only a deterrent to rational people who don't want to die. The threat in the future is more likely to come from groups or organisations who either couldn't care if they live or die or who embrace death because of some irrational religious conviction. Therefore the deterrent effect of Trident is gone and at the same time it's practical use is zero because terrorists don't all tend to gather in one area large enough for a tactical nuclear strike to wipe them all out.

 

Surely the money being proposed to spend on a replacement for Trident would be better spent on conventional weapons, proper armour, better troop carriers, better equipment, better surveillance and monitoring, better intelligence. They are the weapons with which you combat the terrorist threat.

 

At the same time we step up efforts at non-proliferation. If a land war is needed to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon then so be it. Likewise North Korea. Then there needs to be more done to bring rogue and govenment-less states like Somalia back under control. All stuff which costs money but will provide for greater long term safety than just splurging on Trident's replacement. IMHO.

[pottedplant]

We still haven't cut out waste as a way of saving money, before anything else is cut.

 

The government and councils still waste money hand over fist, a lot of it on vanity projects and self agrandisement. Should we really be subsidising the MPs food and drink in the Houses of Parliament for example? Or pay £300 per day expenses for every Lord? Why not cut a few top civil servant's pay by half so they're on £150,000 - still a lot more than the average working man.

 

Lets subject the MPs to a few cuts before we pick on anyone else...

 

Re Civil Servanst on £300k........can only find 1 so not a lot of revenue to be gai

end there.

 

The highest-paid official was Dennis Hone, Olympic Delivery Authority boss, earning between £310,000 and £314,999.

 

He is the only government employee to earn more than £300,000.

[Dromedary]

Surely the money being proposed to spend on a replacement for Trident would be better spent on conventional weapons, proper armour, better troop carriers, better equipment, better surveillance and monitoring, better intelligence. They are the weapons with which you combat the terrorist threat.

 

At the same time we step up efforts at non-proliferation. If a land war is needed to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon then so be it. Likewise North Korea. Then there needs to be more done to bring rogue and govenment-less states like Somalia back under control. All stuff which costs money but will provide for greater long term safety than just splurging on Trident's replacement. IMHO.

 

 

If Iran or Korea having 1 or a few nukes is a problem when we have many hundreds then who is the threat? They fire one and then we obliterate them so saying they will use them is just plain stupid as its self defeating for them to do so.

 

Israel are said to have them for a deterrent but as of yet no one knows as no tests have been claimed or done. So, how many nukes do we need for them to be a deterrent?

[harvey19]

And if it came to a war we would want to have a better or as good as weapon as the enemy.

If we hadn't people would ask why not when they were being threatened with death.

[tinfoilhat]

Has it been full explained what is so wrong with the current lot of nuclear gear?

Is it just out of date and not likely to work?

If so it needs to be replaced.

 

We don't need to spend money making them 'more accurate' or any of that rubbish.

Surely the deterrent is greater is everyone knows we make them big enough to blow stuff up even if they veer wildly off course

 

I've thought the same. Has it run out of "nuclear"? Will it forget where it's going?

[Vague_Boy]

and who is it deterring and what is it deterring them from doing?

 

Launching an EMP attack?

 

For the likes of North Korea this is certainly within their technological capabilities.