UK's nuclear deterrent

[Ananke]

Lib Dems' 'naive and reckless' plan to cut nuclear deterrent will leave UK vulnerable to Iran or Russia, Defence Secretary warns.

Why does Uk thinks it needs a (very expensive may I say) nuclear deterrent (Trident) when hundred of other countries manage without it?

[Jericho]

It's Boycie innit!.
A desperate bid to cling on to the glory days of Empire! :shrug

[LibertyHarkness]

because we are an island and was a superpower .. if the UK was to fall out with the USA and EU we would be fucked ..

But yeah to be honest whats the point when the government cant even afford to man them properly in teh first place lol

War is brewing in the next decade i reckon ..

[Ananke]

when you see how many conventional conflicts in the world, it doesn't look like much of a deterrent to me.

[LibertyHarkness]

once america nuke someone again then the detterent will be real again :)

[robertlouis]

once america nuke someone again then the detterent will be real again :)

Nuclear weapons have been used in anger twice, Libby. Both times in 1945 over Japan. That's almost 70 years ago.

Can't see the US or any of the current nuclear powers using them.

However, if they fell into the hands of fundamentalists or other rogue elements, who knows?

But having nuclear subs with missiles trained on Moscow and Beijing will have no effect on that.

We can't afford hospitals, schools, to keep kids out of poverty, but we can afford £100B to keep us "safe"? Bollocks.

And to the OP - for "UK" read "UK government". A large minority says no.

Oh, and if Scotland goes independent, they will ask the UK to take their submarines and nuclear risk away from the Clyde (less than 20 miles from a population of 2,000,00 in the central belt). If Westminster wants a nuclear deterrent, let them park it in the bloody Thames.