In response to William Griffiths: The horrors of Hiroshima should not blind us to our need for nuclear defence, Politically__Incorrect wrote:
The figure of £100 billion replacement costs quoted by the opponents of Trident is misleading. The actual cost of replacing the submarines and the weapons is estimated at between £17 billion and £26 billion. The remaining costs are based on in-service running costs of £2 billion to £2.6 billion per year over the 40 years the weapons are expected to be in service. This amounts to between 5 and 6 per cent of the annual defence budget and an even smaller percentage of the annual welfare budget. On that basis, these weapons are not as expensive as groups like CND would have us believe.
As you say Mr Griffiths, there are many rogue states around the world seeking to possess these weapons. Many of these states would have no scruples about using them against countries like the UK. No gesture of unilateral disarmament is going to persuade these states to leave us alone. Corbyn, like all those who advocate abolishing Trident, is too wrapped in his own delusion that laying down our arms in front of the world’ s most evil regimes will persuade them to turn into kindly, philanthropic states. Those are the daydreams of pot-head hippies.
I pray that nuclear weapons will never be used again, but as a deterrent they are effective. Unlike conventional forces, they are never likely to be used frivolously by the UK, as Mr Blair used our conventional forces in Iraq, for example. But if the unthinkable should happen, we have a truly fearsome weapons system with which to protect our nation.
