Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Should the UK replace our Trident nuclear weapons when they become obsolete?

Our nuclear deterrent reaches the end of its life in around 2025. SHoudl the UK spend the estimated £10billion on developing a replacement or should we scrap the idea of being a nuclear power and rely on NATO to protect us?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Helper
    Lv 4
    2 decades ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think that most countries only want nuclear weapons to feel important. No country will ever use them again. In fact, I would suggest that the only time they would ever be used is in a terrorist attack. The world the way it is, any country that tried to use a nuke would find itself up against 195 other countries. We like stability and launching nukes does not keep the world stable.

    I think that would be an opportunity for the UK to take a leadership role - without being seen as doing what the US tells them to. They could be one of the first countries to give up nuclear weapons. That would give them an incredible amount of weight in arguing for disarmament or at least slowing nuclear proliferation.

  • 2 decades ago

    I hate to answer your question with a question but will the world be safe enough in 20 years to go without a nuclear deterrent? Probably not...

    However, this amount of money (you say £10bn, CND say £25bn) that could be spent on this deterrent could be better spent on other areas of the UK economy. For example, hospitals, schools, renewable energy.

    The NATO aspect of your question is interesting as in theory yes, we should be able to rely on NATO to protect us, or have a collective NATO arsenal as a deterrent, the problem here though is intransigence between member countries.

    Personally, I dont think we should waste this money on nukes, however I am sure Tony Blair will think differently and sign up to a replacement arsenal no matter how much it costs.

  • Anonymous
    2 decades ago

    Please spend the money on something better. I wish my government America would spend our money on something better.

    Instead of nuclear bombs for the next 20 years what if we spent the money on housing for the homeless, education for the population, eliminating poverty.

    WHile one would argue we can't eliminate poverty we could still try and whipe out the poverty in the population that would be willing to do its part with the assitance of government.

    I mean for example, a student who needs the money to go become a doctor to find cures for diseases, will get their degree and be able to pay government back at a low interest rate,

    would be better then any more bombs cause we have enough.

    There was a time and place for this, the missile race, like 1950s and 60s and even 80s,

    not anymore.

  • 2 decades ago

    yeah, go on, there's no harm in trying.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.