Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
The House of Commons has approved the British government's plans to update and replace the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system.
The UK will join a US programme to extend the life of the American-made D5 Trident missiles into the 2040s and will build a new generation of submarines in the UK. A decision on new nuclear warheads - whether to extend the existing ones or make new ones - is not needed until the next parliament, a government white paper says. If they are needed they would be made in Britain.
How much will it cost?
Tony Blair said the new submarines would cost between ã15bn and ã20bn over 30 years and take up 3% of the defence budget each year.
What is the case for UK nuclear weapons?
Mr Blair said that in an uncertain world, it would be "unwise and dangerous" for the UK to get rid of its weapons. He said "it is not utterly fanciful" to "imagine states sponsoring nuclear terrorism from their soil. We know this global terrorism seeks chemical, biological and nuclear devices". Although the Cold War was over, he said, no-one could say whether any new threats would emerge.
What other options were there?
The government ruled out unilaterally scrapping the UK's nuclear weapons. Once that decision was taken it also ruled out using air-based, or land-based nuclear weapons systems
What about its legality?
Some argue that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Britain should not be re-arming but moving towards total nuclear disarmament. Article VI of the treaty says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." Critics also argue that using Trident would break international law since such a weapon would not be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
What is the government's response?
It argues that the treaty does not commit member states to total disarmament but to negotiations on effective measures and that it has fulfilled this pledge. It has cut its nuclear weapons explosive capacity by 70% since the end of the Cold War. It has given up bombs carried by aircraft and has reduced the operational readiness of its four Trident missile submarines. Only one submarine is on patrol at any one time, it needs several days notice to fire, its warheads have been reduced to 48 and are no longer pre-targeted. The government argues that its nuclear weapons are designed as a deterrent and would only be used as a last resort in self-defence and that therefore they are no different in principle and international law from other systems.
Would a new warhead have to be tested?
Britain signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996 and is observing a moratorium on tests though the treaty has not come into force yet. So the testing of new warheads by explosion is in effect banned. However, there have been reports in the Sunday Times that Britain has been developing a new warhead which does not need testing by detonation. Called the "Reliable Replacement Warhead", it could be tested by computer instead. The work for this would be done at Aldermaston for which major new investment was announced in July 2005.
And right after this england voted for iranians sanctions.for building a nuclear power station.And is telling iranians to follow the treaty.
usa is also building more powerfull nukes.
isreal have 200 nukes but it isnt subject to any sanctions or inspections.
Arabs have decided the iranians nuclear power plant is more dangerous then israels missiles pointed at them.
The UK will join a US programme to extend the life of the American-made D5 Trident missiles into the 2040s and will build a new generation of submarines in the UK. A decision on new nuclear warheads - whether to extend the existing ones or make new ones - is not needed until the next parliament, a government white paper says. If they are needed they would be made in Britain.
How much will it cost?
Tony Blair said the new submarines would cost between ã15bn and ã20bn over 30 years and take up 3% of the defence budget each year.
What is the case for UK nuclear weapons?
Mr Blair said that in an uncertain world, it would be "unwise and dangerous" for the UK to get rid of its weapons. He said "it is not utterly fanciful" to "imagine states sponsoring nuclear terrorism from their soil. We know this global terrorism seeks chemical, biological and nuclear devices". Although the Cold War was over, he said, no-one could say whether any new threats would emerge.
What other options were there?
The government ruled out unilaterally scrapping the UK's nuclear weapons. Once that decision was taken it also ruled out using air-based, or land-based nuclear weapons systems
What about its legality?
Some argue that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Britain should not be re-arming but moving towards total nuclear disarmament. Article VI of the treaty says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." Critics also argue that using Trident would break international law since such a weapon would not be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
What is the government's response?
It argues that the treaty does not commit member states to total disarmament but to negotiations on effective measures and that it has fulfilled this pledge. It has cut its nuclear weapons explosive capacity by 70% since the end of the Cold War. It has given up bombs carried by aircraft and has reduced the operational readiness of its four Trident missile submarines. Only one submarine is on patrol at any one time, it needs several days notice to fire, its warheads have been reduced to 48 and are no longer pre-targeted. The government argues that its nuclear weapons are designed as a deterrent and would only be used as a last resort in self-defence and that therefore they are no different in principle and international law from other systems.
Would a new warhead have to be tested?
Britain signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996 and is observing a moratorium on tests though the treaty has not come into force yet. So the testing of new warheads by explosion is in effect banned. However, there have been reports in the Sunday Times that Britain has been developing a new warhead which does not need testing by detonation. Called the "Reliable Replacement Warhead", it could be tested by computer instead. The work for this would be done at Aldermaston for which major new investment was announced in July 2005.
And right after this england voted for iranians sanctions.for building a nuclear power station.And is telling iranians to follow the treaty.
usa is also building more powerfull nukes.
isreal have 200 nukes but it isnt subject to any sanctions or inspections.
Arabs have decided the iranians nuclear power plant is more dangerous then israels missiles pointed at them.
