Trident?

[Von Smallhausen]

It's a sad state of affairs when the threat of nuclear destruction has prevented a major world war since WWII but it is a fact that it has done precisely that.

Whether the old Soviet forces massed over the Iron Curtain would have poured over into Western Europe or whether they wouldn't is academic now, but I can not think of a single greater reason than the existence of nuclear weapons. The UK's first deterrent was the air launched bomb carried by the old V-Force of Vulcan bombers and that shifted to a naval option when British ballistic submarines started carrying the Poseidon missile in the 1960s in R class subs and then upgraded to the current Trident missiles carried by V class subs, which is our current deterrent.

The Cold War is over and it is fair to ask why do we still need a deterrent ? Terrorism is the new threat we face, why do we need nukes ?

I would like to see nuclear weapons go but the real problem is not Britain possessing them, it is who else has them or is trying to get them. Look at Iran. They are researching nuclear capabilities which they claim are for civil use only but what guarantees do we have that will remain. What is to say that they will pass that technology on, or provide material on to terror groups for a dirty bomb. They sponsor fundamentalist groups such as Hezbollah and fund weapons, why should this not be the next evolution ?

North Korea as well. Not only do they possess nuclear weaponry, they fired a missile, no warhead, over Japan which is a grave threat to security in the region. Japan is a non-nuclear nation in terms of weaponry and there are thousands of US troops stationed there.

While other nations possess nuclear weapons, I feel that Britain must do also. As for Trident being replaced at a cost of over £20 billion, could the life of the current system not be extended as the threat faced differs hugely from the Cold War era ?

As for Stan's idea .... very interesting option.