Nuclear Deterrent or Weapon of Mass Destruction
Posted by David Chaytor, MP for Bury North, at 22:47, Tue 5 December 2006:
This week the government published its White Paper on the future of the Vanguard Class Submarines which carry the Trident missile system. We call this our Independent Nuclear Deterrent.Other countries may describe it as Britan's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I'm interested in my constituents' views about the future of this weapon system. Is it useful in the war against Terrorism? Can we predict what threats we might face in thirty years time? Can we afford it? Can we afford not to have it? Would the money be better spent in other services like health or education? Does Britain need a nuclear weapon to stay at the top table in international diplomacy? These are some of the questions MPs will be debating over the next three months before a vote is taken in the Spring. Please let me know what you think.
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by David Walton, 07:37, Wed 6 December 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
It would be foolish to not have our intrests protected. It may be expensive but I'm sure that we could always have another new tax to pay for it call it protection tax maybe ?
Posted by Dan Bailey, 21:53, Wed 6 December 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Nuclear weapons are completely useless against terrorism. They offered no protection against the July 7th tube bombings, or any of the IRA bombings in the decades before that.
It's hypocritical that we tell other nations they can't pursue a nuclear weapons program, when we ourselves are actively doing the same. We should be setting an example and moving towards disarmament, not making ourselves look even worse in the eyes of the rest of the world.