Trident

[mondo_notion]

So we are about to spunk £40 billion on renewing the trident system. Is that how much it costs to make sure the missiles actually fly off in the right direction? Seems there was a catastrophic failure in a missile test not so long ago and the government tried to keep it hush hush. As you would I suppose as they are not much of a deterrent if everyone knows they don't work.

http://news.sky.com/story/may-under-...to-us-10738689

[Jupiter]

Sounds like we need the new Trident as soon as possible.

[Mason89]

You'd struggle to think of anything that's a bigger waste of cash than trident. Itd be like spending £600k on replacing Ray McKinnon with Ray McKinnon again.

[Psaw]

Cool or what. Football is more important than defence. Without defence, Pittodrie will host beheadings, eventually. Complacency, a precursor to disaster. Some of us live in an adult world, where bad things happen.

[mondo_notion]

Cool or what. Football is more important than defence. Without defence, Pittodrie will host beheadings, eventually. Complacency, a precursor to disaster. Some of us live in an adult world, where bad things happen.

Good point well made.

[claw84]

Thats why the missiles are tested to make sure they work and to iron out any faults, I know its a hell of a lot of money but we want to sleep safe in our beds.

[Pacman1903]

Itd be like spending £600k on replacing Ray McKinnon with Ray McKinnon again.

[Stupie82]

Thats why the missiles are tested to make sure they work and to iron out any faults, I know its a hell of a lot of money but we want to sleep safe in our beds.

It doesnt make me sleep any easier. I know you havent specifically used this term, but calling these weapons a a deterrent is a way to keep the public believing in the myth that it is such. It wasn't a deterrent when JFK blockaded Cuba and that was likely the greatest ever risk of nuclear confrontation. Lets not forget, the most powerful nation in the world keeps using this deterrent term, while at the same time being the only one to use such weapons in warfare and one of the countries closest to being part of a full on nuclear war.

You're right though, it is a lot of money and a bloody waste of money too. The likes of you and I will never benefit from the use of these weapons.

[mondo_notion]

I cant say I'm for or against them, I have family near to Faslane so I know how much they rely on it but can't seem to justify them given the amount of money they divert from other areas.

It's more the fact that the failed test costing £18 million was covered up before the westminster vote on whether or not to renew them. Might not have changed the minds of enough people to sway the vote the other way but it still reeks.

Think I read somewhere that the submarine that was involved in this test hasn't had a successful launch in 15 years or so meaning if the worst was to happen we don't even know if it would work. Kinda scary.

[Disco Buc]

For me trident IS a waste of money now over 200 billion and some .
Whilst Westminster is 1.7 trillion in dept..

As I've said before I will say it again there has been 5 category B incidents involving trident
1 at Faslane.

2 at Davenport.

1 off the Norwegian coast

1 in the middle of the Mediterranean.

We have enough nuclear weapons to kill up to 320 million people .

Shocking . Pressing that button to kill millions of people is absolutely disgusting.
If anyone agrees with trident I'd like to see you walking past cities of dead people men woman and children and the poor wildlife
Who have done nothing wrong immediately after .

It's all wrong.