The primary duty of every Government-Trident

Gordon Booth · 22-09-2010, 18:01

'The primary duty of every Government is the defence of its citizens'. Can't remember who said that, although David Cameron said something similar recently.
So with that duty in mind, our Defence Minister has decided to put off a decision on the Trident replacement until 2015! Not because we don't need it, not because we can't afford it and not because there is no hurry.
He's done it,he says quite openly, because it will EMBARRASS the Labour Party when they have to vote FOR it with the Tories just before the next election and presumably may lose them votes!
Can we trust a man so petty to be in charge of our defence? Who let a Liberal Democrat become our Defence Minister? They don't believe in defence do they?
Both main parties agree(whether we all do or not) that Trident must be replaced. To lose 5 years of design, developement and progress, together with the cost of maintaining Trident beyond its planned life just to embarrass another party is the height of irresponsibility and a typical decision of the Lib Dems when they weren't in power. Now they have some power but still haven't grown up.
Should this man keep his job?

s.pollard · 22-09-2010, 18:17

It`s ok for them as they don`t have to stand in line to defend the united kingdom when open war starts

cashman · 22-09-2010, 18:23

was also on the news tonight that next year our lads will have 100s of the new heavily armored land vehicles, hang on how long have our lads been out yon? when are we supposed to be withdrawing?

jaysay · 22-09-2010, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

was also on the news tonight that next year our lads will have 100s of the new heavily armored land vehicles, hang on how long have our lads been out yon? when are we supposed to be withdrawing?

Don't know Gordon didn't tell us before he did a runner

cashman · 22-09-2010, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Don't know Gordon didn't tell us before he did a runner

Yeh mean like you did at dinner time?

MargaretR · 22-09-2010, 19:14

Nuclear weapons might be unusable if this reuters report is to be believed
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects | Reuters

s.pollard · 22-09-2010, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

was also on the news tonight that next year our lads will have 100s of the new heavily armored land vehicles, hang on how long have our lads been out yon? when are we supposed to be withdrawing?

Them " V " hulled vehicles were used by the R.S.A.Army back in the 70`s.
It`s took them long enough to figure out how to overcome I.E.D.`s

JCB · 22-09-2010, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Nuclear weapons might be unusable if this reuters report is to be believed
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects | Reuters

I hope all nuclear weapons of all the countries that possess them will be unusable .

steeljack · 22-09-2010, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCB

I hope all nuclear weapons of all the countries that possess them will be unusable .

Yep , I'm thinking all those folks, (Men Women and Children) including lots of young Brits who spent years in Japanese POW camps during the mid 40s will share your views, think most of them will say that the A-Bombs saved their lives

.

Gordon Booth · 22-09-2010, 20:07

There has never been a weapon invented which wasn't fully used(however unpleasant it was).The human race is a nasty species and one day another madman will arise and we will have another World War. In 10/20 years when the future 'Taliban Government of Pakistan' finally has a missile which can reach Europe(to go with the nuclear warheads Pakistan already has) or Iran gets the warhead to go with its missiles do you think they will hesitate to threaten with them AND use them? Our only defence will be to say 'We will do unto others as they have done unto us' and ensure they know the cost to them would be so great that it wouldn't be worth it. That's the MAD policy which kept the peace between the West and the USSR for so many years, unpalatable but true.

Barrie Yates · 22-09-2010, 22:25

But why the Trident System. The RAF are capable of hitting any target from an aircraft at significantly lower cost of transport vehicle than a Trident armed submarine. They can also do it more accurately with Laser Designation.

Mancie · 22-09-2010, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

But why the Trident System. The RAF are capable of hitting any target from an aircraft at significantly lower cost of transport vehicle than a Trident armed submarine. They can also do it more accurately with Laser Designation.

But the RAF don't escape the cuts..according to the Times:

The Con-Dems proposed cuts of 36 billion in the defence budget include reductions in Tornado F3 air defence aircraft and Harrier GR7s, and early phasing out of Nimrod MR1/MR2 surveillance aircraft. A number of RAF bases will be earmarked for closure.

gynn · 23-09-2010, 09:06

It would be interesting to see a list of how much each of our European allies are spending on Trident or its equivalent. Just as it would be nice to see a list of how many troops each of our European allies has at the moment in Afghanistan.

I am all for defending ourselves, but I sometimes think the UK carries more of the burden of defending the "Free World" than other countries.

If the likes of France, Germany, Italy and Spain are spending billions on Trident, then so should we.