Does Britain need a nuclear arsenal any longer? This is a debate which will continue to rage in Britain for many years to come and it has now become a real political hot potato with the Scottish Nationalists leading the charge against a replacement for Trident. Replacing the present four armed Trident submarines will cost in excess of 100 billion pounds, according to some estimates, which is almost four times the total yearly defence budget. But at the same time it will safeguard thousands of jobs at Barrow-in-Furness where the vessels will be built and protect yet more jobs at the Faslane naval base where the submarines will be based. If Britain wants to remain at the top table of world powers it needs a nuclear deterrent. Its permanent seat on the United National Security  Council almost depends on it. So perhaps before the British government goes ahead and spends an enormous sum of money on  nuclear weapons the British people should have their say. Why not have a referendum because after all it is a deeply controversial issue and everyone has an opinion. The money from Trident could easily be spent on conventional weapons so that the armed forces could deal with the threat from Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Britain is a member of NATO and therefore comes under the nuclear shield of the United States.  There are plenty of arguments for and against but perhaps it is time for the people to have their say.

Comments

To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and be logged in.

* Mandatory fields

keith / Hace over 5 years

maybe we should start a tourist tax of our own and let somebody else pay for our problems. simples

+1-