UK reviews Falklands defence as Russia offers Su-24s to Argentina

[Steve781]

They do not need it.It's just an urban myth,like alligators in the sewers.






But without strings attached.You can correct me with a link.All i found is saying that it's up to the British chain of command on how to use them.

Of course the Americans say there's no veto. In practice there is though as they could just refuse to ship us the missiles. Plus Trident was designed for the specific purpose of striking Moscow. It's quite useless against other countries.

 

[ravi kiran]

No it's not and unlike you i can sustain it with proofs.Word of mouth doesn't cut it and falls in the Bigfoot sightings league.

you are free to believe whatever you want but truth does not change with your believing or not believing.

 

[Steve781]

By the way why does the UK not have a missile program of its own?

I believe we did in the fifties and sixties but it was so expensive we couldn't continue.

 

[flamer84]

Of course the Americans say there's no veto. In practice there is though as they could just refuse to ship us the missiles. Plus Trident was designed for the specific purpose of striking Moscow. It's quite useless against other countries.

Read the link from your own MOD,...no.no and no.The UK is in full control of its nuclear arsenal.

 

[IceCold]

I believe we did in the fifties and sixties but it was so expensive we couldn't continue.

How's that even possible? I mean if poor countries like India and Pakistan can afford a dedicated missile program, how come UK cant?

 

[flamer84]

you are free to believe whatever you want but truth does not change with your believing or not believing.

I'm believing the statements of the UK's officials who's business is to control the Armed Forces and their nuclear arsenal over internet gossip.I win.

 

[greatone]

The strong take what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

Today UK is strong and Argentina is weak.

I don't see the situation changing over the next 40 years.
Anything beyond that is for our children to worry about.

 

[Steve781]

How's that even possible? I mean if poor countries like India and Pakistan can afford a dedicated missile program, how come UK cant?

India and Pakistan don't have extensive welfare states. We decided, unwisely that this was more important than our defence.

 

[greatone]

India and Pakistan don't have extensive welfare states. We decided, unwisely that this was more important than our defence.

I take it that you think holding on to some far off islands should somehow be more important than being concerned with welfare of your people ?

That is very strange.

 

[Steve781]

I take it that you think holding on to some far off islands should somehow be more important than being concerned with welfare of your people ?

That is very strange.

The welfare of people is not necessarily advanced by providing them with money they haven't earned. It can lead to all kinds of destructive behaviour. The Falklands though are not the main priority for our defence and shouldn't be.

 

[ravi kiran]

I'm believing the statements of the UK's officials who's business is to control the Armed Forces and their nuclear arsenal over internet gossip.I win.

Read the part in red

Time to debate the alternatives to replacing Trident

• The Guardian, Tuesday 16 July 2013 21.00 BST

In a way the Liberal Democrats' insistence on reviewing alternatives to Trident (Opening salvo from Lib Dems fires up Trident public debate, 16 July) seems pointless, since neither the Conservatives nor Labour will wear it. But it is important that these matters not drop from public sight, so it's right to do it and other alternatives should also be mentioned.

The Liberals' alternative is not exactly radical: continue with Trident replacement, but with a smaller number of submarines, which are not necessarily 24 hours continuously at sea. A further step would be for Britain to cease possessing actual nuclear weapons at all, but retain the knowledge and capacity to produce them at relatively short notice if and when felt necessary.

This is known as threshold status and the example usually given is Japan. Threshold status was suggested as far back as the 1980s by the disarmament writer Jonathan Schell, as a possible first step in international disarmament negotiations.

Serious attempts at international nuclear disarmament are in deep sleep at the moment, scuppered by the determination of the existing nuclear powers to retain their nuclear weapons come what may.

But it is just conceivable that financial constraints could eventually induce some change in the lesser nuclear powers, and they would then need some idea they could sell to their more rightwing domestic opinion. This would not save the cost of each submarine – but would enable the reduction in their number – and it would not save all cost of nuclear facilities; but the savings would still be enormous.
Roger Schafir
London

• The coalition's review on Trident fails to consider the unilateral option. Britain's nuclear weapons are as anachronistic to our future defence as battleships or the Royal Company of Archers. Those who cling to the notion that Britain is still a superpower are living in the past. Nuclear missiles are as much a relic of the cold war as sailing ships to the Battle of Trafalgar.

At the Labour party's national policy forum in Birmingham on 22 June, Ed Miliband stated that "Labour should debate the issue when the coalition report is published". That time has now arrived.
George McManus
Labour's global role policy commission

• The financial albatross called Trident is neither independent nor credible. Control was handed to Washington when the decision was made to use a missile delivery system designed, manufactured and overhauled in the US. Even submarine-launched test firings are conducted in US waters near Cape Canaveral under, needless to say, US Navy supervision. It is inconceivable that No 10 would fire Trident in anger without prior approval from the White House.

Persisting with Trident and its proposed replacement in order to retain our permanent United Nations security council seat is to reject British pragmatism in favour of la gloire. At least the French, to their credit, went to the trouble of developing their own submarine launched missile delivery system. They own it, hence control it.
Yugo Kovach
Winterborne Houghton, Dorset

Letters: Time to debate the alternatives to replacing Trident | UK news | The Guardian

 

[flamer84]

Read the part in red

Time to debate the alternatives to replacing Trident

• The Guardian, Tuesday 16 July 2013 21.00 BST

In a way the Liberal Democrats' insistence on reviewing alternatives to Trident (Opening salvo from Lib Dems fires up Trident public debate, 16 July) seems pointless, since neither the Conservatives nor Labour will wear it. But it is important that these matters not drop from public sight, so it's right to do it and other alternatives should also be mentioned.

The Liberals' alternative is not exactly radical: continue with Trident replacement, but with a smaller number of submarines, which are not necessarily 24 hours continuously at sea. A further step would be for Britain to cease possessing actual nuclear weapons at all, but retain the knowledge and capacity to produce them at relatively short notice if and when felt necessary.

This is known as threshold status and the example usually given is Japan. Threshold status was suggested as far back as the 1980s by the disarmament writer Jonathan Schell, as a possible first step in international disarmament negotiations.

Serious attempts at international nuclear disarmament are in deep sleep at the moment, scuppered by the determination of the existing nuclear powers to retain their nuclear weapons come what may.

But it is just conceivable that financial constraints could eventually induce some change in the lesser nuclear powers, and they would then need some idea they could sell to their more rightwing domestic opinion. This would not save the cost of each submarine – but would enable the reduction in their number – and it would not save all cost of nuclear facilities; but the savings would still be enormous.
Roger Schafir
London

• The coalition's review on Trident fails to consider the unilateral option. Britain's nuclear weapons are as anachronistic to our future defence as battleships or the Royal Company of Archers. Those who cling to the notion that Britain is still a superpower are living in the past. Nuclear missiles are as much a relic of the cold war as sailing ships to the Battle of Trafalgar.

At the Labour party's national policy forum in Birmingham on 22 June, Ed Miliband stated that "Labour should debate the issue when the coalition report is published". That time has now arrived.
George McManus
Labour's global role policy commission

• The financial albatross called Trident is neither independent nor credible. Control was handed to Washington when the decision was made to use a missile delivery system designed, manufactured and overhauled in the US. Even submarine-launched test firings are conducted in US waters near Cape Canaveral under, needless to say, US Navy supervision. It is inconceivable that No 10 would fire Trident in anger without prior approval from the White House.

Persisting with Trident and its proposed replacement in order to retain our permanent United Nations security council seat is to reject British pragmatism in favour of la gloire. At least the French, to their credit, went to the trouble of developing their own submarine launched missile delivery system. They own it, hence control it.
Yugo Kovach
Winterborne Houghton, Dorset

Letters: Time to debate the alternatives to replacing Trident | UK news | The Guardian

That's a journalist's opinion ,an amateur,gossip.I gave you a link with official statement from the UK MOD.

 

[ravi kiran]

That's a journalist's opinion ,an amateur,gossip.I gave you a link with official statement from the UK MOD.

UK will never accept it officially and publicly.

 

[flamer84]

UK will never accept it officially and publicly.

Because it's not true,they're fairy tales.How can you even believe that a country that developed its own nuclear weapons,has missiles on its submarines,can't launch it by itself ? It's ridiculous,we shouldn't even be discussing it.

 

[nomi007]

axis of power are going change