One year after the expected date of the next election - sometime in 2016 - the UK will be making the decision of to commit about £20 billion to replace the four Vanguard submarines (which will be approaching the termination of their service), each of which carries a Trident D5 missile.
Since 1994, these four submarines and their nuclear weapons system have provided the UK's main deterrent. The question is, is Trident really a deterrent - or merely a political insurance policy?
If a country like Iran or North Korea should launch a nuclear attack on Britain, then four Triden D5's wouldn't stop the barrage of weapons that would expectedly be thrown at us. So why do we have them?
The answer is a simple one. To strike back and cause damage to any aggressor that might think to wipe us out. Vanguard has the ability to take Trident close enough to hart any aggressor.
They doesn't really protect, they might deter slightly, but that are good for retaliation. "Wipe us out," they threaten, "and you'll regret it!" That's as bad a a dog that barks at a burger after he's robbed your house.
The truth about the nuclear deterrent is: it isn't one at all. No sane person wants to go down in history for pressing the button; and wiping out thousands of innocent individuals. Nuclear isn't like a missile that can take out a specific military target - it burns indiscriminately, men women and children alike. A Trident D5 is powerful enough to destroy a major capital city (like New York). There are no winners in a nuclear strike - not even the aggressor.
During the 1980's, Labour were commitment to unilateral disarmament. However, the 1983 elections put pay to their plans; and from the moment Tony Blair took on leadership of the party, Labour's stance on defence toughened.
The Conservatives stance is to back full Trident replacement. The Liberal Democrats want something else, a policy that is distinct and radical; a less elaborate deterrent might suffice. (Whatever that less-elaborate-deterrent might be is still unclear.) Ed Miliband has not said where he wants to take Labour - concerning the nuclear deterrent.
£20bn in capital expenditure is a cost that Britain can ill afford.
We have a rare opportunity to make a radical change. The (British) Social Media Party was founded to overcome the sovereignty and national independence of singular governments, and form an all-powerful one-world government with the sole aimed of promoting disarmament and guiding peace. (The most powerful clique in history.)
I have but this one objective: to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the nationalism of countries. I want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties to increase and ensure world peace. What I strive for will inevitably remove the dictatorship of governments and the loss of freedoms the people suffer daily.
The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new one. Or are we doomed to await for the collapse. I believe a new order will be born sooner than later and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.
Outwardly, most governments seem democratic. However, operating within each government or political system is another body - representing another form of government - the bureaucratic elite.
It is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity; a common action is possible, despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see amongst socialists. Progress and peace and justice are attainable.
What our intent is, is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so during its construction by gallant and graceful people.
But before the new world order becomes an efficient and beneficent world system countless people will hate it (the fortune 400), some will even die protesting against it (the malcontents who never have enough). But the stability of the future peace of the world depends upon it.
By reluctant enthusiasm, the world seems to be definitely drifting towards a world social democracy. So I say to all governments and their people: Let's fashion together a new world order of peace in our time.
 |
| A Trident missile armed Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine leaving its base in the Firth of Clyde. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
If a country like Iran or North Korea should launch a nuclear attack on Britain, then four Triden D5's wouldn't stop the barrage of weapons that would expectedly be thrown at us. So why do we have them?
The answer is a simple one. To strike back and cause damage to any aggressor that might think to wipe us out. Vanguard has the ability to take Trident close enough to hart any aggressor.
They doesn't really protect, they might deter slightly, but that are good for retaliation. "Wipe us out," they threaten, "and you'll regret it!" That's as bad a a dog that barks at a burger after he's robbed your house.
The truth about the nuclear deterrent is: it isn't one at all. No sane person wants to go down in history for pressing the button; and wiping out thousands of innocent individuals. Nuclear isn't like a missile that can take out a specific military target - it burns indiscriminately, men women and children alike. A Trident D5 is powerful enough to destroy a major capital city (like New York). There are no winners in a nuclear strike - not even the aggressor.
During the 1980's, Labour were commitment to unilateral disarmament. However, the 1983 elections put pay to their plans; and from the moment Tony Blair took on leadership of the party, Labour's stance on defence toughened.
 |
| English: United States Trident II (D-5) missile underwater launch. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
£20bn in capital expenditure is a cost that Britain can ill afford.
We have a rare opportunity to make a radical change. The (British) Social Media Party was founded to overcome the sovereignty and national independence of singular governments, and form an all-powerful one-world government with the sole aimed of promoting disarmament and guiding peace. (The most powerful clique in history.)
I have but this one objective: to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the nationalism of countries. I want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties to increase and ensure world peace. What I strive for will inevitably remove the dictatorship of governments and the loss of freedoms the people suffer daily.
The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new one. Or are we doomed to await for the collapse. I believe a new order will be born sooner than later and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.
Outwardly, most governments seem democratic. However, operating within each government or political system is another body - representing another form of government - the bureaucratic elite.
It is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity; a common action is possible, despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see amongst socialists. Progress and peace and justice are attainable.
What our intent is, is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so during its construction by gallant and graceful people.
But before the new world order becomes an efficient and beneficent world system countless people will hate it (the fortune 400), some will even die protesting against it (the malcontents who never have enough). But the stability of the future peace of the world depends upon it.
By reluctant enthusiasm, the world seems to be definitely drifting towards a world social democracy. So I say to all governments and their people: Let's fashion together a new world order of peace in our time.
Article writing is also a fun, if you bе fаmіliar
ReplyDeletewith аfterwaгԁ you can ωrite if not it is difficult to write.
Here is my blog ... live roulette payouts
This is so true. They say "always write about what you know" and I have to agree. Thanks for popping by.
ReplyDelete