trident

trident

what do people think about buying new trident missiles?

we are to be allowed a debate in parliament AFTER the decision to buy them has been made

estimated cost £30 to 74 billion depending on who you beleive.

why should politicians debate something that should be down to the government and defence/intelligence forces?

Politicians are partly elected to make decisions about funding allocations.

Is trident worth the money more than schools/the NHS/other parts of the military etc?

Ask military types and they'll probably say they need it, ask a teacher, and they'll say schools need it.

Obviously it is a political decision

politicians aren't priviledged to the information that a national security decision could be based on.... You simply cannot entrust the security of our nation in someone that has absolutly no idea of present or future threats to our country.

The education system is something we all experience often on a first hand basis, you cannot compare that with defence.

It's our money and our country. And MP's are supposed to represent us. Deciding wether to have billions of pounds of weapons of mass destruction is something we have a right to decide on.

Your health is something you have to decide on, but if you wake up with pulsating green blisters on your face you seek medical advice - as you couldn't possibly make the diagnosis yourself.

How can you expect a group of back benchers (or even the opposition) to make valid contributions to the debate when they don't know the first thing about national security?

We elected the government, therefore we should trust them to act on information the general public cannot be privy to.

eeh you're a one for trusting authority you

is thiss the same people who brought us sadaams weapons of mass destruction?

who's opinion would you trust?!?!?

the people in charge just love big boys toys. given a chance they will always say we need them. Just cos they are in authority don't make them right. Often it's the opposite. We should have an informed debate in a democracy and the people should decide based on the facts. National security is a convenient place for liars to hide

What sort of a retarded argument is that?

"the people in charge just love big boys toys"

Forks if the trident system is replaced it will be for one of two reasons; economics or defence. Unfortunatly because of the nature of national security we are forced to trust those we elected - a debate chaired by unqualified politicians is going to do nothing but confuse matters.

you are being naive here. Do you really beleive that the 'people in charge' are somehow above being power hungry and prone to self aggrandisement?
The decision will be made by people who want the biggest willy. nobody else gets a look in. there is no real debate, no chance to influence the decision by the people who are going to pay for it.
If there is some real threat out there that is so big it needs a massive amount of nuclear weapons to counter it then I think we need to be told.

oh and by the way those we elect are the 'unqualified politicians'

It doesn't take a military analyst to realise the world is a rapidly changing place, nuclear proliferation is a growing problem as new super/economical powers like India and China develop their nuclear programs, while potential rogue states like North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are locked in a global arms race.

At a time when the rest of the world is upping their nuclear capabilities, scrapping ours seems a strange stance.

In a utopian society we wouldn't need a military, but sadly we don't live in a perfect world and while there exists a threat we should be prepared to invest in our security.

I haven't even touched on how unqualified politcians are in this field as it's stating the obvious. For you to dismiss government, military and intelligence consensus out of fears of personal greed and egotism is insanity.

If I have a tooth ache I go to a dentist.
If I'm ill I go to a doctor.
If I want financial advice I visit an accountant.

If there is an issue of defence, I'd seek the advice of those qualified in defence!

but upon election they have access to information those outside of government don't?!?!?

Who should decide if we go to war?

depends on what that war entails....

but without guidance from out military and intelligence we haven't a hope in hell of reaching an informed solution.

China has longer reaching missiles than the UK and its estimated that they have more missiles than the UK.

Russia has the largest stock piles of nuclear weapons in the world and with a far from stable democracy, a plethora of enemies and an anti-western government.... Russia's arsenal hardly invites global stablility.

The real risk however does not lie in China or Russia, as erratic nations like North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran and Saudia Arabia developing their Nuclear capabilities it seems insane for the UK to disarm.

After America the UK still remains one of the focal points for global hostility... The talk of disarment in the 80's was sensible, but the circumstances were different. In todays climate the Nuclear threat comes from several states as opposed to two states racing for global supremacy.

nuclear threat from north korea my arse.
Saudi Arabia to launch nuclear strike on UK. my arse
We get trident so it offsets Americas development costs and everyone involved from the chiefs of staff to tony (gods on my side) blair wants to sit at the top table with the big boys and wave their big willies about.
It's yesterdays weapon at tomorrows prices.
we can't even launch it without Americas say so cos they kept the launch codes.
It's bollox and we have to go without schools and hospitals to pay for it.
rant over.