cool. wonder what the article meant by "the other five having a sharing and training arrangement with the usa?" what you got to do to get the truth thees days?
It seems to be widely believed that modern warheads are vastly more powerful than those used on Japan. However, although this would be possible, technically, it seems that more precise targeting of larger numbers of smaller weapons is now a more likely approach. Although one cannot believe everything in Wikipedia, I have no reason to suppose that what is written here about Trident is completely misleading: UK Trident programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This says that the warheads are probably about 4 or 5 times WWII capacity (up to 100 kilotons - whereas those used against Japan were about 20), but the sinister aspect is that each individual missile can contain multiple independently targeted warheads! To keep things in perspective, it is worth reading about this to grasp just how dangerous the cold war was: Tsar Bomba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A 50 megaton explosion... more than 2000 times Hiroshima. And demonstrated for real, in 1961.
"They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far."
George Aylett@GeorgeAylett Corbyn bowed, applauded veterans and his wreath said "Let us resolve to create a world of peace" The Sun lie again.
But wasn't our very existence was threatened by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? They were ready to be sent to destroy us all at 45 minutes notice. It must be true - I remember Tony Blair saying so - and surely he wouldn't lie to us all (and parliament) would he? A "good offensive capability" is one which is credible - ie a "deterrent" that the enemy believe you would actually use - and suitable for purpose. Nuclear weapons do nothing to deter terrorists. Credible, active and efficient Special Forces do... How about saving a few quid on Trident and investing it in the SAS and the SBS? They're a lot more likely to be able to defend our safety, our assets and/or our very existence that a "deterrent" that nobody thinks we would use, or which cannot be used practically against the enemy.
"Worked out pretty well so far" for who exactly? Iraq? Viet-Nam? Afghanistan? That's how America does it!
But that was all not as it seemed at the time and the enquiry still hasn't be published. I have conceded that nuclear weapons aren't a good response to a terrorist threat and accept that special forces are a much more effective response. That there are cases where nuclear weapons were not of value doesn't negate the argument for when they are of value, which is deterring a rogue state in possession of weapons of mass destruction. You can never be certain that Trident has been an effective deterrent. It's success is defined as whether it is eventually decommissioned without ever being used, because if it is used then it has certainly failed. Cheap insurance in an uncertain world. Why risk getting into a gunfight holding only a knife ?
The proposed Trident replacement will start coming into service in 2028 and will be operational for 30 or 40 years after that, so until 2068 or so. What threats and what enemies will the UK and the world face over the next 50 years? What will our children and grandchildren have to deal with? I have no idea. The fact is you don't know, and Jeremy Corbyn doesn't know. None of us has a clue. Chatter about the threats UK does or does not face this year and last year, and whether nuclear weapons do or do not help preserve us from them, are irrelevant. It is wholly unknown, unpredictable problems in future decades which the weapons might be needed to deal with. If Britain's nuclear weapons were scrapped, along with the capability of building and maintaining the bombs, warheads, rockets, and submarines of which they are comprised, it would be unfeasibly difficult to resurrect them at a future date - no matter how desperately our successors needed them. Abolition is a one-way ticket. And a leap in the dark.
Peace is very easy to attain, if you just surrender to tyrants and leave them in control of the world forever. Peace with honour and freedom is difficult, dangerous and expensive to seek. I know which kind of peace I prefer.
Chuka grows a pair Chuka Umunna suggests Jeremy Corbyn and his 'nasty trolls' should be disqualified from office over their pacifist views - Telegraph
