Opposition to Replacing British Tridents

Trident ‘may cost other services’

The like-for-like replacement of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent would be costly for Britain and divert funding away from the rest of the armed forces, according to four senior military commanders…

“Any genuinely comprehensive review needs to weigh up all of these issues and answer the question: ‘Is the UK’s security best served by going ahead with business as usual; reducing our nuclear arsenal; adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?’

“The state of the public finances requires each of these options to be carefully evaluated, alongside like-for-like replacement and disarmament.”

Besides, the US Navy will still have Tridents and they will defend us. Why bother with paying for our own?


  1. It’s not clear if they are talking about the missles themselves or their ballistic subs. I think ballistic subs still make sense. Once the missles are launched, nobody in the world really has an effect anti-ballistic missle system (now that Obama killed our system in the name of “peace’).

    Nuclear ballistic subs are the ultimate “don’t f*ck with us” weapon.

  2. They are talking about the entire package – missile and submarine, Bram.

    Besides, the US Navy will still have Tridents and they will defend us. Why bother with paying for our own?

    It’s not clear to me who needs deterring. France? Russia? Germany? What threat justifies the expense?

    1. Britain needs a certain distance from dependence on the US nuclear umbrella for the same reason as France – if it ever came to the crunch the USA might well give materially less than 100% support (think Falklands, in which France actually supplied more useful aid than the USA).

      Oh, and potential (I stress that) adversaries include the USA itself, as well as others not among those suggested.

    2. I sure wouldn’t count on Obama to retaliate if Iran floated a couple nukes up the Thames. Of course it would probably kill more Muslims than Christians at this point.

  3. I said ‘threat’, not potential adversaries, P.M.

    What threat exists to Great Britain that would justify launching a city-killing nuclear missile?

    1. Britain faces a very real threat from Iran, and her proxies Hamas & Hezzbollah. Any British subject who doesn’t realize that (and there are many) is truly daft and leaning towards being criminally naive.

      Britain very much needs to maintain it’s SSBN’s and Trident nuclear deterrent force. The money to support and modernize the Royal Navy, as well as provide for new construction would be easily available if Parliament would kick all non-Britains off the dole. It is a sad state of affairs when good British subjects, hard-working taxpayers, are robbed by Parliament to provide free money for hundreds of thousands, yeah MILLIONS of foreigners.

      Britain is at a tipping point and needs to make a decision whether she will remain a bastion of Western Civilization, a bulwark against the darkness of 7th century ignorance, or just turn off the lights and slip into a 3rd world status, or worse.


    2. Ah, but, threats and potential adversaries are the same thing – because “potential” is built into the former. As for intentions, well, those are irrelevant because they can change so quickly. It is the same reasoning as that used in preparing the battle plans for the USA against Canada and vice versa between the World Wars. After all, Japan wasn’t a threat to the USA in intention terms right up until a few months before it was, but all the war resources and materiel took a longer time scale for each side to get in place and had to be prepared on the basis of analysis that disregarded current intentions. There is a very good discussion of this presented in the novel The Mote in God’s Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle – the latter of whom had a background in strategic analysis.

  4. So how goes neutering yourselves Britain? Looking forward for when the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, or any other nuclear power can boss you around.

    Elect some politicians who understand the need for a strong national defense. You’ve been great allies to the United States, but it is just wrong how you have to borrow gear from us Americans because your own government doesn’t give a damn about the state of your armed forces.

  5. I didn’t mean to imply that I personally want said countries to be able to boss the United Kingdom around, yet it seems the “peace activist” types who live in a fantasy world don’t care.

    Good luck in turning this BS around.

  6. With the current demographic trend taking place in Britain, it is probably desirable they give up their tridents. For that matter the same could probably be said of the US.

  7. So we should just give up 11 Bravo? Embrace mediocrity and let the world push us around? I don’t know about you but I like being a military superpower and I will always do whatever I can to keep us that way.

  8. William, we have given up, are embracing mediocrity, and are letting the world push us around.

    Every year millions of people from the third world bum rush into Europe and North America and we don’t even attempt to screen them. It would be one thing to take the high-IQ cream of the crop, which might amount to 100K per year, but we don’t even bother. We take in folks who go straight to the welfare dole. Despite this we let foreign governments like Mexico lecture us for not taking in more.

    As for being a superpower, how can one be a superpower when you are so dependent upon others? We rely on the Chinese for a significant chunk of our electronic and manufactured goods. We rely on the Chinese to continue to buy our bonds else our currency will collapse. How does that equate to being a superpower?

    Lastly what’s the point in trying to maintain superpower status when you are becoming a third world nation? It’s like worrying about cleaning the kitchen while your house is burning.

  9. I would expect president Obama to cut the US TRIDENT program down even further. The notion that we are no longer living in a dangerous world, is false.

Comments are closed