Jump to content

Build new Trident now - Theresa May


FlyerTon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 355
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Correct decision IMHO. Very interesting to see what happens if they're renewed and then Scotland goes independent. In 2014 the preferred option was for a deal to be struck to keep Faslane as an rUK naval base with Scotland getting something else in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct decision IMHO. Very interesting to see what happens if they're renewed and then Scotland goes independent. In 2014 the preferred option was for a deal to be struck to keep Faslane as an rUK naval base with Scotland getting something else in return.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct decision IMHO. Very interesting to see what happens if they're renewed and then Scotland goes independent. In 2014 the preferred option was for a deal to be struck to keep Faslane as an rUK naval base with Scotland getting something else in return.

 

Tories have took Scotland for mugs.  Shut down almost the entire RAF here (1 base remains), coastguard stations etc

 

However, they'll let us keep the weapons of mass destruction 25 miles as the crow flies from the centre of Scotland's biggest city.

 

Would they move these nukes to just outside Portsmouth?  No fuc*ing chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tories have took Scotland for mugs.  Shut down almost the entire RAF here (1 base remains), coastguard stations etc

 

However, they'll let us keep the weapons of mass destruction 25 miles as the crow flies from the centre of Scotland's biggest city.

 

Would they move these nukes to just outside Portsmouth?  No fuc*ing chance.

 

 

Why not? Is there an inherent danger in where they're kept? Where do America keep theirs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does need them.

"It" being the Government one would assume. For one thing they are not an "independent" deterrent. Trident is largely yank technology running with yank satellites and ergo needs the yanks to authorize the whole caper.

Secondly, this whole grossly exorbitant venture is the definition of a vanity project. To keep a seat on the security council? We ignore the United Nations with impunity when it suits (see Iraq).

The sooner that everyone in Whitehall admits that Suez was the end for us as a genuine global power and we swallow our pride the better.

We rely on the United States who it is known would prefer us to have functioning conventional armed forces rather than a half arsed compromise of our military as is, and Trident.

The irony with brexit is that our standing, influence and clout is on the wane yet again. That includes the"special relationship" btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Is there an inherent danger in where they're kept? 

The biggest danger is to the local MP's seat*, which is why the Tories put them in a place they haven't a hope in hell of winning.

 

*Well, apart from it being a primary target in any nuclear conflict, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to a submariner of my acquaintance the original plan was to put them in West Cornwall but there's more cloud cover in the west of Scotland making it harder to monitor by the satellite technology that was available at the time of the decision.

The improvements in spy satellite technology have made this less of a factor these days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May wants to build new Trident now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/theresa-may-calls-for-urgent-go-ahead-on-trident-replacement/

With us coming out of Europe and the Tories in full control, worrying times ahead?

and Trump at the helm.

 

America have a base in Florida certainly that's about 40 miles from Jacksonville. Population 850,000.

Do they only have the one base?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...