Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Conundrum
If the Trident replacement is going to work in deterring the not exactly massive threat of nuclear destruction then why should we fork out again for national missile defence and if national missile defence actually worked properly then why would we need to replace Trident?
Answers on a postcard... ¶ 2:42 am
Answers on a postcard... ¶ 2:42 am
Comments:
<< Home
Good point. And if Compass really wanted to have a DEBATE on Trident why did they only invite people who are agin it to speak? Sounds like they need more than a Compass to ghet their house in order. This House Believes in No Trident. Speaking against: No-one at all.
If only life were really like that.
If only life were really like that.
The major problem with NMD is that the reliability is not high which you kind of want it to be when the consequences of failure are so bad.
Another problem with NMD is that it turns trident into an offensive rather than defensive system.
Other states will then respond in kind with their own NMD's which will undermine the effectiveness of trident and the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine. If mad is undermined and a state thinks that it can use nukes with impunity then we are all stuffed.
Post a Comment
Another problem with NMD is that it turns trident into an offensive rather than defensive system.
Other states will then respond in kind with their own NMD's which will undermine the effectiveness of trident and the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine. If mad is undermined and a state thinks that it can use nukes with impunity then we are all stuffed.
<< Home
