"MPs to vote on Trident nuclear weapons system renewal" I expect the idiots will vote for it. Considering the next war is going to be fought from suitcases and phials, I don't think that 4 nuclear subs can do very much about it, so they'll never be deployed. Oh well 'Those whom the gods wish to destroy . . . ' and all that! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36820416
I’m sure you’ll be as shocked as I was but I actually agree with you on the effectiveness of retaining tactical nuclear weapons that we’ll never use. This vote is an irrelevance in that actual decision though. It’s a political tool set up as an easy high-profile win for Teresa May and a kick against the Labour party on an issue they’re known to be split on. Even in the off-chance that the government lost this vote, they’d still find a way to press on with renewal.
I knew it! The fools have voted 'for'!! £70b AND some for something which will never be used in anger - actually will never be used full stop! I don't know what Sturgeon's gonna think about them being based on a Scotch loch somewhere though? She'll go (no pun intended!) ballistic|! But hey-ho, 'Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.'? Still things could be worse - at least we don't have the buffoon Johnson for a prime minister. We all owe Michael Gove big-time!
You do know what Sturgeon is gonna think about the vote...and not just Sturgeon. The only Scottish MP who voted for renewal was our esteemed Scottish Secretary. All grist to the Scottish independence mill, though. Boris as PM would have been the icing on the cake, but I suppose it was too much to hope for. Having said that, Gove would have been nearly as good.
Well ... after a British submarine had collided with a commercial ship in Gibraltar yesterday, you need new submarines, right? Fun away ... British Navy armament process is somehow strange. Having a very expensive new little Aircraft Carrier, still without the since years intended fighters for and so being not more as a helicopter carrier is another example.
It seems a bit of an expensive cost to me. First we place nuclear weapons on Gibraltar, the Falklands & mainland Britain to defend our terriotorial claims against current threats from our enemies. But I am not sold on the idea of having a nuclear threat from a submarine force.
Why have Trident when you've got various forms of cruise missiles? I mean, stupid or what!! Either way, a country under attack would need to know who's doing the attacking before it can retaliate with anything, and knowing who it is is the hard part!!!
