Yes the attitude towards the military was obsequious and nauseating.

As to trident that is not really necessary. We could still use nuclear armed cruise missiles fired from the other subs and ships.


2.46 x average voter

I said that to my wife actually. I guess they can't/won't take the risk though!

0.56 x average voter, more than I thought.

Yes and no. Much of the cost of social security is housing benefit. Which has been inflated by the property bubble. Longer term they have to kill off the property bubble but that would mean driving down house prices and what would the average householder think of that?

I'd be cock-a-hoop, but then I'm not the average householder.

If you rent you would benefit, as would the tax payer paying housing benefit.

It's not that simple. A SLBM has a range of nearly 5000 miles, compared to around 700 miles for a cruise missile. This means that you can't hit targets far inland without practically parking on the beach. Having SLBMs means you can park your submarine in a safe place.

"The President meanwhile admitted to a significant let-out clause for the United States. Until all the world is rid of nuclear weapons, the US will be obliged to maintain a safe and secure nuclear capability "to deter our adversaries and reassure our allies". Sceptics may regard such a "you-first" approach as a guarantee that his stated goal of a world without such weapons will never happen."

This is almost exactly what Brown was saying last night. Obama can call for whatever he wants, but the UK won't wanna give up theirs before anyone else. Fact. I would happily get rid of it in a sec. My point was, most voters won't (I reckon), but certainly the powers that be won't.

Clegg just shows how he's not right for the game. He's trying to play fair and that won't win. I might disagree with that, but it's how the game is played. I'm looking forward to another 5 years of [LIFTED] from somebody who couldn't care less about me. Should be fun.

Yes but how many real needs do we have for them. We are no longer worried about a war with Russia which would mean that we would need them. We could still be a major threat with cruise missiles alone. We could also surrender them as part of the US Russian deal. Also why cant we use some of the savings for the navy, either more subs or aircraft carriers?

But why do we need one at all? Can't we just leave it to the Yanks? We wouldn't be able to fire without their permission anyway.

We should just bluff - launch the submarine with (or without) the missiles that may (or may not) have real warheads. We only really need one functioning warhead anyway (perhaps we should put it in a silo next to the Houses of Parliament).

I would rather we boost our conventional forces or at least improve the homes of the forces rather than waste it on ministry infrastructure.

Does anybody know in detail the non proliferation of nuclear arms treaty thingamebob?

I was under the impression that, strictly speaking, we'd be breaking the terms of that treaty by replacing Trident anyways...

We don't need it for the battles we have nowadays, except to pander to paranoia. Truth is it wouldn't take that many nukes to pretty much rape the planet of an atmosphere that we can breathe so whoever uses them has nothing to gain. Plus the US and Russia still have huge arsenals, I see very little need for anybody else to want them.

My understanding is that if we have 12 war heads we can replace with 12 of equivalent power.

Non-proliferation treaty. Not a non-replacement treaty.