Keir Starmer

Because it's basically a US thing. We couldn't really use it without their agreement. Not that I can conceive of any circumstances when we would want to use it. Killing someone else when you are already dead is a tad pointless.
The warheads are UK designed and manufactured, and whilst the missile system is a US system, the UK has full operational control and the US cannot override a launch order by the PM. It really would be totally pointless if it were otherwise now that we know that the US can elect a Russian asset into the White House.
 
The warheads are UK designed and manufactured, and whilst the missile system is a US system, the UK has full operational control and the US cannot override a launch order by the PM. It really would be totally pointless if it were otherwise now that we know that the US can elect a Russian asset into the White House.
Doesn’t make much difference as we elected one into Downing Street!
 
That is bollocks
OK, let's say you're right and it's bollocks, or even bollocks squared.

It's still of no practical use, and because it costs a bomb (no pun intended) it leaves inadequate funding for conventional forces. Meaning that the only way to have conventional forces that are adequately sized and properly equipped is to spend a disproportionate amount on defence in total. Good luck with that when you have a declining economy, year on year, compared to the market leaders.

This is how the USSR collapsed, it could not afford to maintain its defences. That is why now Russia is sending obsolete T62 tanks from museums into battle.

If you want a powerful military you have to start with a powerful economy to fund it.


Interesting article: https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.