The LibDem intention not to replace Trident

[Andy Millne]

Iraq

hmmmm, now are you sure this time?

[sizsells]

Fair enough, with one concession........

This is a misunderstanding, and one widely proliferated by typically innacurate wikipedia article that i suspect you've accessed. Those five countries are the ones who openly ADMIT to having built their own nuclear weaponry, yet there are numeous others that are well known to have not only the capability to do so, but in some cases are believed to have done so. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - as you mention - are known factors, and Iran, Syria, Japan, a number of the middle east countries and a handful of others are widely believed to have nuclear capability. Furthermore, many countries are home to nuclear weaponry in good order - the former Russian states (the Soviet Union no longer exists) being notable as not only did many f the weapons stay in their bases upon the break up of the Union but their is a well known quite alarming discrepancy between the number of warheads that were around at that time and those that exist now (in other words, quite a large number have 'gone missing').

One other thing I will say is that your last line about free speech is interesting, and while it may well be in no way down to Nuclear Weapons it is certainly down to weapons per se; that nuclear weaponry was in its infancy at the time of the last world war is the reason for that, otherwise we would undoubtedly have been looking at the H-bomb as our saviour from a Nazi regime.

Well like I have said we will have to agree to dissagree.

We can all make assumptions about what will possibly happen in the future only time will tell though and as I dont consider myself an expert on the past, present or future for that matter I will leave it there for the mystics and misguided to fortell any woe .

Edited April 30, 2010 by sizsells

[threegee]

I don't believe that the LDs quoted £10Bn (per year over ten years) saving is a real one. There will be offsets negotiated as there are in all such mega-deals, and there will be UK jobs lost. There is also a likely cost in building up conventional forces unless we cease all overseas adventures forthwith.

Also does anyone honestly think if we back out of paying our nuclear dues the USA is simply going to say fine, come sit under our nuclear umbrella for free! There's going to be a major price exacted one way or another.

Then there's the knock-on on our defence contractors - a major earner for our economy. They currently enjoy a privileged position, but if we are out of the nuclear club they will face a host of problems which are near unquantifiable.

Then there's our current position in the world. No, not past glories but how things are now! We'll inevitably be technologically downgraded. The loss of trade is another unquantifiable, but it will be significant and a one-way street! Technologically and politically downgraded too, as we'd find our seat on the UN Security Council very hard to justify.

And there's one other major thing we'd be throwing away: a major bargaining chip in future arms reduction negotiations. No peace price exacted; nothing to show for sixty years of paying our subs to the nuclear club! An even worse deal for the country than Gordon giving away our gold reserves!

As I've said before there's no one person or political party wise enough to handle this one without putting it to the public as a single issue referendum. The responsibility for getting this very wrong needs to be shared.