We’re being internally and externally chastised for proposing a 25% reduction of trident capabilities, apparently a meagre reduction compared to potential commitments from the U.S. and Russia. Let’s not forget, of course, that we ONLY have 160 warheads, compared to their combined 3,500.
Personally I’m all for a competent nuclear deterrent, and whilst the number could safely be reduced and maintain the counterstrike potential, find it insulting that we’re being accused of less than half measures when the U.S. has enough hardware to end the world. Why on earth did they need to build 1,500 warheads? Further more, how can they sit with any impartiality or status on the NNPT when they have not only continued research and development, but also continued to stockpile weapon stocks. Surely the most salient point of the treaty was DISARMAMENT? Well. That and non-proliferation…..which they’ve also been breaking.
My point here being that there’s far worse things going on than us ‘merely’ quartering our deterrent when there’s other people who are barely even complying with the rules, let alone offering serious reductions.
Perhaps Mr. O can fix this for us. I’d certainly like to see a world where the only nuclear goings on are in the field of energy production. But until then, I’d definately like to see us maintain a viable deterrent of our own, especially given that we keep getting dragged into every wasps nest the Americans and their COLOSSAL nuclear arsenal stir up.
I don’t think it’s revolutionary thinking, but perahps myself and my allegedly Socialist nation are indeed the next ‘red’ threat?
