Trident Replacement

[Charlie]

Tony Blair has told MPs it would be "unwise and dangerous" for the UK to give up its nuclear weapons.

 

The prime minister outlined plans to spend up to £20bn on a new generation of submarines for Trident missiles.

 

He said submarine numbers may be cut from four to three, while the number of nuclear warheads will be cut by 20%.

 

Mr Blair said although the Cold War had ended the UK needed nuclear weapons as no-one could be sure another nuclear threat would not emerge in the future.

I am sure many Labour MPs will be extremely angry because it is clear the prime minister has set out a pre-determined timetable

Kate Hudson

CND

 

Send us your comments

Key points: Blair on Trident

 

 

He said the options of changing to a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system had been considered and ruled out.

 

Instead the system would remain one based on a fleet of submarines which carry the Trident missiles, each of which can be fitted with a number of nuclear warheads.

 

Mr Blair said between £15bn and £20bn would be spent on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The submarines would take 17 years to develop and build, and would last until about 2050.

 

He said the UK would also join the US programme to extend the life of the Trident missiles until 2042 - and would then "work with" the US on successor missiles.

 

A decision on the nuclear warheads themselves "is not needed now", Mr Blair said, although the white paper said a decision would be needed in the next Parliament.

 

MPs to vote

 

Mr Blair, who faces some opposition within the Labour Party to the plans, said there were "perfectly respectable" arguments about giving up nuclear weapons.

TRIDENT MISSILE SYSTEM

 

Missile length: 44ft (13m)

Weight: 130,000lb (58,500kg)

Diameter: 74 inches (1.9m)

Range: More than 4,600 miles (7,400km)

Power plant: Three stage solid propellant rocket

Cost: £16.8m ($29.1m) per missile

Source: Federation of American Scientists

 

How Trident works

 

 

But he said he had to make a judgement about the country's security and the consequences of misjudgement would be "potentially catastrophic".

 

"The risk of giving up something that has been one of the mainstays of our security since the war... is not a risk I feel we can responsibly take," he said.

 

MPs will vote on the plans in March after a period of debate, he said.

 

Conservative leader David Cameron said his party agreed with Mr Blair's position "on substance and on timing".

 

But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said proper consideration of all relevant factors could only be made, if the decision was postponed until 2014.

 

He also wants the number of UK warheads halved to 100 - a move he said could help kickstart multilateral disarmament.

It's hard to see what the point of the Cabinet's discussion was...

BBC political editor Nick Robinson

 

Read Nick's thoughts in full

 

 

Critics believe the money would be better spent elsewhere - saying Trident was designed for the Cold War era, not the current threats to the UK such as international terrorism.

 

Kate Hudson, from the anti-nuclear pressure group, CND, said she was "very very disappointed" with Mr Blair's announcement.

 

"He talked vaguely about reducing the number of submarines and warheads but it is not clear what that would mean," she said.

 

"I am sure many Labour MPs will be extremely angry because it is clear the prime minister has set out a pre-determined timetable."

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

I personally feel that we still need nuclear missiles of some sort, if we don't we're leaving ourselves open to attack which we can't retaliate against....

[Zygo Ape]

I disagree, once Nuclear weapons are made, theyre more of a threat than defence. I agree that it might keep other countries in check with the knowledge that we are actively investing in Nuclear weaponry, but disposal of these weapons is dangerous, and leaving them dormant for years is more-so.

 

I used to be scared of Nuclear winters, and the prospects of it happening are growing by the day.

 

But hey, who am i?

[gaggle64]

We just don't need them. The only nation likely to fire anything at us any time in the foreseeable future is N. Korea, and they only have an operational range of a few hundred miles. Besides our American allies have got nukes coming out of the wazzoo. This is a phenomenal amount of money were talking about here. A phenomenal amount of money that could be spent much better else where, like national security, social services and so on.

[Eenuh]

It's stupid.

Saying that other countries are not allowed to make nuclear weapons and starting a war with them when they supposedly do (or threat to start a war), while countries like the UK and US are allowed to have them.

 

"You can't have them cause you're evil countries, we can have them cause we're more advanced and a democracy."

 

Blah.

[Haver]

Welcome to Realism 101 kids. Is the microphone working?

[Twozzok]

Besides our American allies have got nukes coming out of the wazzoo.

 

I personally don't think we should give up our nuclear weapons, just because American has them coming out of their asses. Can we honestly trust the US to use them we'd need to. Which is another point, the only reason we'd use them is if one was fired upon us, which would be stupid, as I think any country knows that they'll be wiped out for using a Nuke. Us included.

[conzer16]

It's stupid.

Saying that other countries are not allowed to make nuclear weapons and starting a war with them when they supposedly do (or threat to start a war), while countries like the UK and US are allowed to have them.

 

"You can't have them cause you're evil countries, we can have them cause we're more advanced and a democracy."

 

Blah.

 

 

I agree with you 100%.

[Charlie]

I agree with you 100%.

 

So you would rather all those dodgy countries have nukes then?

[conzer16]

What i dont like is the "You can't have what we have" attitude.

 

It seems trivial that the UK/US wont allow countries to develop nuclear capabilities (whether for defence or energy) safely or collaboratively but use their arsenals to evoke threats one associates with bullies.

[Bowser57]

Before this escalates I'd suggest everyone goes and watches Matthew Broderick in War Games... No actually go and watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off, it's great.

[Haden]

It's stupid.

Saying that other countries are not allowed to make nuclear weapons and starting a war with them when they supposedly do (or threat to start a war), while countries like the UK and US are allowed to have them.

 

"You can't have them cause you're evil countries, we can have them cause we're more advanced and a democracy."

 

Blah.

.

 

I disagree with you 100%

 

Well maybe 90 as I see nuclear weapons as a waste of money. But to give them to a country like lets say Iran whos leader has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map is hardly responsible is it.

[dabookerman]

This country is tiny, what would there be left to protect if a nuclear holocaust is unleashed.

[Monopolyman]

Of course were going to need nuclear defence. It's effectively the best method of defence for our country, and like Blair suggested, who knows whats going to happen in the future.

[Shyguy]

Exacly, countries should be allowed nuclear weapons if they have the responsability to do so. N.Korea launching a nuclear missle secretly to test isnt that good at giving a good image

[Shino]

Shit! Portugal (or Ireland or Germany or Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands...) doesn't have nukes! How can we protect ourselves! WE'RE DOOMED!!

 

 

(but I don't agree with Eunuh or conzer16)

[Eenuh]

.

 

I disagree with you 100%

 

Well maybe 90 as I see nuclear weapons as a waste of money. But to give them to a country like lets say Iran whos leader has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map is hardly responsible is it.

 

I don't say that other countries should be allowed to have them (hell, I wish no one would have them at all, though that would be a bit of a utopian thouht). I just think it's stupid that some countries can have them and then expect other countries to not make them.

[conzer16]

Shit! Portugal (or Ireland or Germany or Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands...) doesn't have nukes! How can we protect ourselves! WE'RE DOOMED!!

 

 

(but I don't agree with Eunuh or conzer16)

 

 

If Ireland joined the nuclear club, Britain, Northern Ireland and especially Dr. Ian Paisley would be having a coronary!!!

 

Bertie Ahern with nuclear warheads....oh dear lord!!

 

In fact...>Willie O'Dea with nuclear warheads...! Bush would have competition as the stupidest man in the world with nuclear weapons!:horse:

 

 

Ireland will never have nuclear capabilities. Nuclear power is regarded as dirty energy in Ireland, even when all the electricity we buy from Scotland/UK is generated by Nuclear Power Stations.

 

So you would rather all those dodgy countries have nukes then?

 

No I would most definitley not like to see North Korea/Iran etc with nukes. But tha fact that other countries have them and use them as a threat against these types of countries is tantamount to taunting a raging bull with a red rag. No?

 

I don't say that other countries should be allowed to have them (hell, I wish no one would have them at all, though that would be a bit of a utopian thouht). I just think it's stupid that some countries can have them and then expect other countries to not make them.

 

^ That's what I'm agreeing with.

[Shino]

I don't say that other countries should be allowed to have them (hell, I wish no one would have them at all, though that would be a bit of a utopian thouht). I just think it's stupid that some countries can have them and then expect other countries to not make them.

 

Who's gonna make them if they're not gonna use it? When the US, UK and other countries like that made them, they had a very clear objective. But North Korea and Iran have no need for them other than pressure and terrorize other countries.

 

Ireland will never have nuclear capabilities. Nuclear power is regarded as dirty energy in Ireland, even when all the electricity we buy from Scotland/UK is generated by Nuclear Power Stations.

 

It's the same here.

[gaggle64]

The only actual argument for maintain a nuclear arsenal is this idea that "we don't know what is going to happen. Whoooooooooo!" Now, I understand that this is a calculated risk. In the same sort of way the possibility of suffocating yourself while using a tea cosy is a calculated risk. The fact remains that an eventuality when the UK actually requires a nuclear deterrent within the life span of trident's replacement, and most likely for some time beyond, is extremely unlikely to occur.

[Aimless]

Surely it would be better to invest the money in the NHS, or national defence that might actually be useful. I mean the government is always harping on about terrorist cells using guerrilla tactics, and how the real threat is from the inside, and how exactly are you going to use missiles against that?

 

I understand the ostensible need for nuclear deterrence, even if I don't agree with it, but there are so many more worthy causes that this £20,000,000,000 could have gone towards...

[Ginger_Chris]

Having played Supreme commander for the last week or so, I don't any upgrade to the trident system would truly impress me. A meager nuclear sub is nothing in comparison to a submersible aircraft carrier or flying battleship.