Sir Ed Davey thinks the UK should build a “fully independent [nuclear] deterrent”, presumably involving British missiles, rather than use American Trident missiles which are currently the delivery vehicle for British nukes.
Do you agree with him?
Sir Ed Davey thinks the UK should build a “fully independent [nuclear] deterrent”, presumably involving British missiles, rather than use American Trident missiles which are currently the delivery vehicle for British nukes.
Do you agree with him?
Do I believe we should funnel billions of pounds of our money into the pockets of arms manufacturers, just so we can have independent control of a weapon whose entire point is to never be fired?
Sure, why not? But can we please sort out some of the more important shit first?
Fair points. But defence might be a sensible thing to spend money on, in a world where stronger powers (Russia, US, Israel) are deciding to attack weaker powers (Ukraine, Iran, Palestine) just because they feel like it
Sure. But is billions on something we already have (but need the USA to help maintain) really the best use of defence spending? Because I bet there are a hundred other areas in defence where disentangling ourselves from the USA would be wise.
Yes, because they are being used to defend against the person supplying your weapons.
Maybe the UK can partner with other European countries to build missiles for nukes, and in return those countries could get protection under the nuclear umbrella. Although I guess that would be a big commitment, promising to launch a nuclear attack on behalf of another country in certain circumstances
100% right!
Being able to secure your own sovereignty is pretty top of the list of your concerns.
Weapons dont need to be fired in order to be effective, nor a good use of money.
In fact, effective weapons you don’t ever fire, is a way better use of money than one’s you need to use.