“I believe he was referring to the fact that Trident was designed specifically to flatten Moscow, to draw attention to the fact that it's now potentially out dated and unsuitable for the modern world.”

“I agree with f007e, and with Nick too. That's exactly why we had Trident in the first place. And it's why we need a major rethink before wasting billions on a fatuous piece of cold war junk.”

“Oh dear Chappy. The person with foot in mouth disease is you, not Mr Clegg. I thought everyone knew about the "Moscow Criterion" (which recommends Britain retains an arsenal capable of destroying the Russian capital) and the fact it is still in place?”

“Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister . not that it makes him any use. We have nuclear weapons because the French do, it is that simple. We would never want to be an inferior nation to the French, who we have beaten in wars and bailed out a few times from sticky messes.
There are more nations tham ever getting ready for nuclear weapons , it is hardly the time to throw them away. We need the ultimate deterrant no doubt.”

“Trident has always been targeted on Russia as they well know. But the only reason why the Con government is now proposing to waste yet more £billions on a new version of Trident is to gain more votes from people who like warmongering.

Personally I would prefer money to be spent on education, health and housing for ordinary people rather than wasted on trident. But PM Cameron obviously takes the opposite view.”

“Have any of you worked on a Polaris or Trident Submarine?

That makes one of us then..

It was NEVER Policy to declare targets, because it's a STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DETERRENT.
but what would I know.”

“Just to add - as F007e has stated a FACT about trident. That you must be absolutely certain to declare this a FACT. Not even the Captain, The XO, The WEO, the TWEO, the PWEO ever knew their targets. So how do you know what they are, and how many Partnership For Peace, UK Official Secrets Act and NATO official disclosure policy directives are you Breaching?


Sansue - the Moscow Criterion, ahh that'll be listed in with the Ten Commandments in terms of it's actual relevance to the current Trident programme then, hence the calls to abandon it.

But to put you straight, it was only ever a demonstration of intent to possess the capability to defeat ballistic missile capabilities based around Moscow. (not target the city itself)
Land Based Nuclear Silo's placed in areas of High Population. (Human Shields) are no longer a factor. NATO had a policy of only targetting legitimate military targets, Britain wanted a license to act alone in our own interests.

Also the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories do not routinely make a point of discussing Nuclear Intent for political gain.

But you obviously knew this, and decided to focus on the bits you like.”

“http://tinyurl.com/8tm5fbj

Just in case you wanted to see how boring it really is.”

“Surely the idea behind trident is the fact that because it is submarine based it allows for a flexible, worldwide deterrent targetted as needed.

"people who like warmongering".......................That will be the last labour government under Blair and Brown then will it?”

“More like it Powellp

iananstey - your opinion, which you are entitled to, Though the reason we have Trident is a bit more than your description.

Bob491, again your opinion, I take it you don't bother to alarm your car, or lock your front door, in some magnanimous belief that if you pay to educate criminals they won't steal from you. Apart from our own security, trident provides an umbrella over other countries which contribute to our economy.

Old Henry, France has aircraft carriers with aircraft. We don't, France builds their own Aircraft without any help from anyone else, we don't. THALES is the major contractor on most naval projects that we are involved in, guess what, they are French. If you honestly think that generations of government have maintained a petty stance, like 2 school children, over what we want, because France has it, then that is up to you.

My point was, that Clegg (Deputy PM) Who deputises for Cameron, therefore his comments and their context are analysed by foreign diplomats, yesterday mention a capital city of a member of the Permanent Security Council, as the reason we have a Nuclear Deterrent.

”

“The line "...Clegg has made a huge mistake in my opinion." - That does say it all, Clegg is a joke full stop. However, I liked his "sorry" song, look on utube for more:

http://tinyurl.com/crxck4q”

“Quote: "Clegg has made a huge mistake in my opinion."

He certainly has. Propping up the most right wing government in living memory will devastate his party for fifty years. Who would chance a vote for LibDems in the future when they know there is always a possibility of a repeat disaster.”

“With four million people unable to work full time as they strive to, this right wing Con government is disastrous for working people.”

“"But to put you straight, it was only ever a demonstration of intent to possess the capability to defeat ballistic missile capabilities based around Moscow. (not target the city itself)"

Well done Chappy, you've repeated what I posted in response to your ill informed initial comment ;-)”

“Well done yourself Sansue, because the key difference between my Statement and yours,

You said to destroy the Russian Capital,
Mine said to destroy nuclear ballistic missile capabilities around the capital and NOT the City itself.

There is a big difference, when you consider that this initiative was drafted with High Payload air delivery in mind. (i.e. V-Bombers) - which we no longer have. With the intent of destabilizing the command structure of the Soviet Republic.

Our Strategic Ballistic Missile capability came online after we abandoned Titan and Blue streak programs, and bought Polaris - modified to the Chevaline variant. Trident was a direct result.

None of these ballistic missiles were ever designed as a 1st Strike Weapon, we hide them at sea on patrol to allow them to remain an effective deterrent. If they were ever intended as a first strike weapon there would be no need to hide them.

Like I said - how many of you have ever served onboard a Resolution or Vanguard Class Submarine or in PJHQ? I am so glad that I was so Ill informed during my service Sansue, maybe we should have got you to brief us before our patrols instead of the Defence Chiefs of Staff.”

“trident was a direct replacement meant to say.”

“Sansue - I don't presume to judge you as Ill informed - and often agree with you.
I can see the point of your argument in this case, but you assume that I am unaware of
long outdated policies which were written during the proliferation of the nuclear arms race,
rather than discounting them as someone who has a more than a modicum of experience in the ever changing world, with new alliances and treaties. NNPT being one of the them.

I still appreciate your opinion far more than the ones who hang on the coat tails of others and try to stick the boot in, when they have no real justification for their opinion or are afraid to express it. So if my reply has been curt, I apologise.”

“Fair enough.”