Donate SIGN UP

Is Money Building The Next Generation Of Uk's 4 New Successor Class Icbm Submarines Money Well Spent?

Avatar Image
willbewhatiwill | 14:28 Wed 19th Jul 2017 | News
23 Answers
Savings from not building new ICBMs is a false argument, as the funds for building the planned 4 ICBMs carrying Successor class submarines comes from the ring-fenced defence budget of 2% of GDP pa. UK's 4 ICBMs carrying submarines are UK's safeguard/insurance policy against being bullied and oppressed militarily.

Nuclear missiles launch sites need to be stealthy to be an effective deterrent. Submarine based IBCMs are the stealthiest & safest. It is common sense that ICBM launch sites based in open ocean (away from land masses) are less dangerous. Land launched ICMs sites are more prone to sabotage & can cause claustrophobic destruction in event of accident or attack.

SNP complained about threats from Russia in the north of Scotland because of the presence of Russian warships, associating their presence with UK not having maritime patrol aircrafts. Surely the best way to counter the military threats from Russia is to be nuclear armed with stealthy & credible submarine based ICBM system – as they are more powerful & effective than hundreds of warships. Around 12,600 Scottish people in Scotland benefit by more than £1.8bn pa as a result of UK MoD & her operations.

New equipment are constantly being updated & replaced, which include - 2 new aircraft carriers (with 48 Lightning 2 (F-35B) for the aircraft carrier squadron), 19 new warships (6 Type 45 destroyers & 13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships), 9 new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, 7 new Astute class & 4 Trafalgar class nuclear powered attack submarines, new missles & radar (like Sea Ceptor, Sea Viper, Aster 15 & 30, Artisan 3D radar, integrated anti-aircraft Sampson radar system), 4 new Successor class ICBM submarines.

Why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.

Contrary to wrong assertions by Jeremy Corbyn and SNPs (lead by Nicola Sturgeon) that UK's nuclear deterrence are ineffective - UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Britain’s ballistic missile submarines are the ultimate guarantee of our nation’s safety.
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 23 of 23rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Avatar Image
It sounds from your question that you have already got the answer! In Corbyn and Sturgeons' world, defence spending is a waste of money. Strange considering how many thousands of jobs would be lost if we listened to them.
15:19 Wed 19th Jul 2017
^ I live in hope !
Question Author
Footage of UK's nuclear deterrent. Serious & important business.

Consider this: Pulling the nuclear trigger in anger will mean UK nuclear deterrent has failed.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=uk+nuclear+missiles+firing+youtube&view=detail&;mid=EFF82EAF597042B172A1EFF82EAF597042B172A1&;FORM=VIRE

Question Author
Footage of UK's nuclear deterrent. Serious & important business.

21 to 23 of 23rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Is Money Building The Next Generation Of Uk's 4 New Successor Class Icbm Submarines Money Well Spent?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.