What are your views on Trident? That is to everyone.

Delay for 5 years, put some money into maintaining whatever we have got for now.

Who is going to nuke us if we don't replace it? I'm not sure why the United Kingdom's continued possession of an "independent" nuclear deterrent would stop a nutter trying to blow up the world and I can't foresee any of the other nuclear states attacking us. Scrap it and save us a few bob.

Considering the scale of the deficit there are more pressing spending priorities than a WMD programme.

The funny thing is the risk from nuclear weapons is generally from aspirant terrorist groups who would nuke us regardless of whether we had any.

Is this just an expensive bit of game playing? www.scotsman.com/scotland/RAF-re ... 6177806.jp

Is this just an expensive bit of game playing? www.scotsman.com/scotland/RAF-re ... 6177806.jp

Yeah, I was busy editing as you replied as I hit the SUBMIT key too quickly.

The big myth that is peddled about Trident, regardless of the arguments about the need to have a nuclear weapons system, is that it is an 'independent deterrent'. Is it bugger.

Trident is an American system, which we buy from the Americans at extortionate cost. They supply all the spare parts for it and they have the satellite communication system which guides the weapons to the target. If the UK wants to launch Trident it has to get the approval of the US. Otherwise we can press the button as many times as we like and they won't go anywhere.

All the computer software programmes, fuses, warheads, parts that need servicing come from the US which again they charge us very high costs for the upkeep of it. The Americans make a lot of money out of the UK for this so they push hard for us to renew it.

The other bonus for them is, once we have spent so much money on purchasing it, we need to have it maintained otherwise its a waste of money, and this ties our foreign policy in with the US. If we hadn't gone to war with them in Iraq and Afghanistan they would have refused to continue servicing Trident and we would have a multibillion pound submarine sailing around the ocean which could do f.all.

So even if it was right for us to have a nuclear weapons system (which I don't agree that it is), Trident is a very bad deal for us.

Whilst this maybe true, there are some things we offer the US in return, it's not all one way as you would have us think.

As long as people [ithought[/i it could work, then it would still act as a deterrent, wouldn't it?

So if Gordon Brown gives the electorate a bit of a wink when he says "We are fully committed to maintaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent", he might be thinking the same thing that I am...

You never know....

Breaking news - more ash on its way.

Are the Lib Dems still advocating de-crimalising cannabis?

Can't see this being a vote winner - the target audience will either be too stoned to remember to vote or the student element won't be up before the polls close.

Update on the Sun's view of the election...

Labour are 'depressed' and virtually out of the race....Might has well give up.

The Liberal Democrats are fading after a fluke weekend...Clegg soon to be exposed as a 1-debate wonder once Mr Cameron gets to work on him.

The Tories are nailed on for victory...They are steam-rollering towards an easy victory and Mr Cameron is a political genius who represents all sides of UK society.


Now, I realise there is an obvious answer to this, but why are the Sun peddling such stuff, when all 'neutral' election news that I read or hear of is absolutely nothing like this?? ...

it was the db of poles when it first came out like the 2k ones you can get today.

tri cast make good poles ,always have always will...