Trident.
In view of the government decision to renew Trident as a deterrent to a nuclear attack I feel it strongly important thought should be given to the consequence of what this means. I am not advocating for or against Trident, which is several submarines each currying about 16 atomic missiles. The question is can new trident be fit for purpose?
Who or what is our potential nuclear opponent? If like me you see current news the answer must be terrorists. A submarine needs a target to threaten retaliation to stop a nuclear attack.
First one has to consider the terrorists live and operate in the UK and second they are suicidal. How can a nuclear submarine stop an attack? You may think terrorists need to posses nuclear weapons in order to attack the UK. Just think outside the box and consider people who are prepared for suicide can distribute deadly radio active material killing hundreds before they die. How can an atomic submarine be useful in those circumstances?
There are ten nuclear power plants in the UK and need I say more. How can Trident protect them without a clear target and if one Trident missile is launched Trident has failed as a deterrent and instead becomes one of the four horses of the Apocalypse.
Is Trident a modern day Maginot line that failed when put to the test. The Maginot line was constructed as a military fortification by France to protect it from attack by Germany before the second World War.
I am reminded of a story about a man being watched by a policeman. The man was standing in the road waving his arms. The policeman asked him what are you doing? The man replied I am keeping the giraffes away. The policeman said there are no giraffes. The man said yes that is because I have been keeping them away.
The last nuclear stand off was between Russia and the USA. How could having Trident protect the UK from either nuclear fallout or intimidate Russia from targeting the UK?
What other countries pose a nuclear threat? Some people suggest Iran as a possible nuclear opponent in the future despite their present attempt to normalise relations. Would it not be more reasonable to cultivate relationships rather than taking a hostile view.
One of the rules for self defence is do not carry a weapon in case it can be used against you. The difference between the Maginot line and Trident is the Maginot line was static but Trident
has a potential to be used as a trigger against the UK. To explain more could be construed to helping an enemy. How can we be sure Trident is not used in this way?
Was the decision of the Government based on Trident's nuclear deterrent capabilities or some other reasons?
The government has greatly increased spending on surveillance of potential terrorists in the UK. Is that because the greatest nuclear threat of attack is there?
It may seem the questions are against Trident but if you are trusting your life for instance to a rope would you not test the suitability and strength of the rope before using it?
Who or what is our potential nuclear opponent? If like me you see current news the answer must be terrorists. A submarine needs a target to threaten retaliation to stop a nuclear attack.
First one has to consider the terrorists live and operate in the UK and second they are suicidal. How can a nuclear submarine stop an attack? You may think terrorists need to posses nuclear weapons in order to attack the UK. Just think outside the box and consider people who are prepared for suicide can distribute deadly radio active material killing hundreds before they die. How can an atomic submarine be useful in those circumstances?
There are ten nuclear power plants in the UK and need I say more. How can Trident protect them without a clear target and if one Trident missile is launched Trident has failed as a deterrent and instead becomes one of the four horses of the Apocalypse.
Is Trident a modern day Maginot line that failed when put to the test. The Maginot line was constructed as a military fortification by France to protect it from attack by Germany before the second World War.
I am reminded of a story about a man being watched by a policeman. The man was standing in the road waving his arms. The policeman asked him what are you doing? The man replied I am keeping the giraffes away. The policeman said there are no giraffes. The man said yes that is because I have been keeping them away.
The last nuclear stand off was between Russia and the USA. How could having Trident protect the UK from either nuclear fallout or intimidate Russia from targeting the UK?
What other countries pose a nuclear threat? Some people suggest Iran as a possible nuclear opponent in the future despite their present attempt to normalise relations. Would it not be more reasonable to cultivate relationships rather than taking a hostile view.
One of the rules for self defence is do not carry a weapon in case it can be used against you. The difference between the Maginot line and Trident is the Maginot line was static but Trident
has a potential to be used as a trigger against the UK. To explain more could be construed to helping an enemy. How can we be sure Trident is not used in this way?
Was the decision of the Government based on Trident's nuclear deterrent capabilities or some other reasons?
The government has greatly increased spending on surveillance of potential terrorists in the UK. Is that because the greatest nuclear threat of attack is there?
It may seem the questions are against Trident but if you are trusting your life for instance to a rope would you not test the suitability and strength of the rope before using it?
No comments have been added yet.
