SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Dan D · 03-07-07, 11:25 AM

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3430
"The United Kingdom has only one way to deliver its nuclear weapons: U.S.-built submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) called Tridents, which are carried on British Vanguard-class subs. These subs are aging and due to be decommissioned in 2024. Since the British government estimates it will take 17 years to design and build a new submarine, a decision looms and an unusual debate has arisen: should the U.K. even bother maintaining its own nuclear deterrent?
Britain's answer will almost certainly be yes, but the fact that there is a real debate at all is interesting..."

Comments?

edit: Make it "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" please.

03-07-07, 11:25 AM	#1
Dan D Grey Wolf Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: 9th Flotilla Posts: 839 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Should Britain have nukes? (article) http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3430 "The United Kingdom has only one way to deliver its nuclear weapons: U.S.-built submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) called Tridents, which are carried on British Vanguard-class subs. These subs are aging and due to be decommissioned in 2024. Since the British government estimates it will take 17 years to design and build a new submarine, a decision looms and an unusual debate has arisen: should the U.K. even bother maintaining its own nuclear deterrent? Britain's answer will almost certainly be yes, but the fact that there is a real debate at all is interesting..." Comments? edit: Make it "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" please.