Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
Actually, I've an idea for them. They could be converted into 'cruise' submarines - people would pay a fortune....
Replacement cost of trident is estimated to be £167bn ! ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6708126.html). More than the cost of the whole NHS for a year ! Bit expensive, for an out of date toy that nobody would ever use anyway.
We're in NATO - protected by the US - almost all other European countries don't feel the need for their own nuclear weapons. We're not a Super Power any longer, and insignificant to the Russians I'm sure. |
Please try to understand the meaning of the word "deterrent".
For a nuclear deterrent to be "used", it must meet the following criteria:
1. It exists.
2. It works.
3. The will to launch it exists.
Note that *actually* firing it is not required for deterrence. Actually firing it is proof that deterrence had failed. At that point, it becomes a last-resort offensive weapon.
Trident is used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, because Trident's primary mission is to deter an attack.
I'm not entirely sure why you artificially restrict your survey to other European nations. Nuclear weapons are proliferating in several other places, all of them less stable and posing a greater threat to our long-term security than Spain or Italy.
Though given your rather woolly thinking on this issue, I can't say I'm surprised that you don't understand how recent history might make the UK's ability to unilaterally defend itself something of a policy imperative.