ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Trident

893 Words4 Pages

Trident is the UKs nuclear fleet, comprised of four submarines, equipped with ballistic missiles the have a range of 7,500 miles. The current missiles have the equivalent “killing power” of eight Hiroshima’s. The current generation of submarines will need replacing during the 2020s procuring a cost of £23.4bn; this figure will rise to around £100bn by the time they are decommissioned after forty years. Do they serve any purpose?

Trident was designed to counter the nuclear threat posed by soviets during the cold war. Clearly this is no longer an issue however do they have any value in today’s world? The week claims “Nuclear weapons have guaranteed our security for generations. They remain the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, and the best means of ensuring peace.” It’s easy to agree with the …show more content…

In times of austerity, when tax credits are being cut, the NHS is being forced to downsize, is this £100bn price tag needed. To put £100bn into perspective, the Borgen Project estimated that it would cost just 19bn per year to end world hunger. The UK government would rather manufacture obsolete weapons than endeavour to end word hunger for 5 years and encourage the other 5 nuclear states to do the same. This speaks volumes about the characters we choose to rule us. It was rather refreshing to hear Jeremy Corbyn saying that he stands by lifetime commitment to scrap trident and that he would never use them in any circumstance. Consequently setting Cameron on a bogus rant about undermining national security. However we could rephrase Corbyn’s words to: “I promise not to murder millions of innocent just because of the decisions of the elite few who rule over them.” Corbyn doesn’t sound quite as deluded, as Cameron would have us believe, It is rather refreshing for him to voice his actual opinions rather that just say what it is popular to believe, many choose not to be so

Show More
Related
310 Words | 2 Pages

Imagine being put in a predicament whereby you have to make a crucial decision, either by dropping bombs to save countless lives or to let the enemy proceed on brutally killing thousands more…What would you do? Quite frankly I feel that the answer is a “no brainer!” Harry Truman’s decision, the president of the US, on dropping atomic bombs upon Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. Japan was the one who first attacked the American Pearl harbour, and up until this time America was completely neutral during the war.

Read More
931 Words | 4 Pages

The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in the month of October, 1962 when American-Soviet relations were tested by the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba by the Soviet Union. Many historians point to this moment in time as the closest the United States and the Soviets ever came to nuclear war. The tensions began to rise once the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, supported by the American government, failed to remove Fidel Castro from power in Cuba. As a result, Castro was open for the Soviet Premier Khrushchev to place troops and nuclear missiles to threaten the United States. Khrushchev considered this justifiable because of the American missiles positioned in Turkey.

Read More
1218 Words | 5 Pages

He is also especially careful to state the prior and possible faults of their government without sounding as if he is complaining by carefully noting that the decision not to act will negatively hurt everyone, not just himself. He addresses what he believes is a false notion that England could be militarizing against another government when he asks the rhetorical question “Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us.” He wants people to look at England’s behavior as what it really is, an act of war that they must promptly respond to.

Read More
761 Words | 4 Pages

hydrogen bomb or H-bomb, weapon inferring an extensive bit of its vitality from the atomic combination of hydrogen isotopes. In a nuclear bomb, uranium or plutonium is part into lighter components that together weigh not exactly the first iotas, the rest of the mass showing up as vitality. Not at all like this splitting bomb, the hydrogen bomb capacities by the combination, or joining together, of lighter components into heavier components. The deciding item again weighs not as much as its parts, the distinction afresh showing up as vitality. Since to a great degree high temperatures are required with a specific end goal to start combination responses, the hydrogen bomb is otherwise called an atomic bomb.

Read More
621 Words | 3 Pages

Weapons of the Cold War Two overly powerful sides never get along with each other. After World War II, the United States and Soviet Union’s alliance broke down as they both became the most powerful countries in the world, therefore, the Cold War started. “Weapon” is anything that causes damage and harms. Weapons used in Cold War were not all physical deadly weapon, but they were indeed powerful weapons in the form of technology, alliances, and psychological influences.

Read More
372 Words | 2 Pages

I believe that that dropping the atomic bomb was justifiable and the United States made a good decision dropping it. The United States and Japan had been going at it for almost five years, it had to come to an end. Japan did not only resist, they also unleashed kamikaze attacks at Okinawa; They also ignored the calls for them to surrender Japan should of seen it coming... If you think about it if the atomic bombs weren’t used there would've actually been more lives lost. Dropping the atomic bombs actually saved lives even though a lot of people have a different opinion on the matter.

Read More
607 Words | 3 Pages

Nuclear power produces fewer carbon emissions than traditional energy sources because energy is not produced by burning molecules but splitting atoms. ‘An energy mix including nuclear power has the lowest impact on wildlife and Ecosystems’ as shown by a Conservation Biology paper. Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by nearly half which shows the benefits and popularity of nuclear power use. Nuclear power has many environmental benefits such as small waste production, leaves no adverse effect on water, land or any habitats. By reducing fossil fuel consumption and switching to Nuclear Energy, we will sustain the environment, quality of air, improving the overall quality of

Read More
1230 Words | 5 Pages

Nuclear Power Support or Fear The global energy demand is increasing as years go by as there is a rapid growth of population in deed of power. Due to the high demand for energy, many people are opting to replace other forms of energy with nuclear power because of its safety, reliability, and sustainability. In addition, it is one of the cleanest carbon free sources of energy available in the world today. Nuclear power is the use of continuous nuclear fission to produce electricity and heat.

Read More
262 Words | 2 Pages

The art of fear is essential in nuclear deterrence. Using the film Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) I will argue that nuclear deterrence is hard to achieve when communication of nuclear capabilities is not well established amongst states. In this paper, I will use the film Dr. Strangelove (1964) to argue how theories such as deterrence theory, realist theory, security dilemma, preventative war, pre-emptive war as well as relative gains and zero sum game led to a failure to achieve nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To make my argument on how more nuclear weapons may hinder deterrence, this essay will proceed as follows; I will firstly discuss the how nuclear deterrence and mutually

Read More
815 Words | 4 Pages

Churchill stated that what he was saying was not aiming at " recrimination", and all he wanted was to give the people a clear image of England 's situation. Churchill continues his speech by telling his people that instead of worrying about the past, they rather be thinking about the future, and about all the things they could do to gain victory. As Churchill says: "of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. " Churchill also talked about how the people should obey their leaders and trust that were doing what was the best for

Read More
831 Words | 4 Pages

Until now America still has a two-party system which are the Republican and Democratic parties. Both parties must have their own supporters. Like the Republican Party that mostly supported by among white people and democrats tend to be supported by blacks. Democratic Party position itself is based on the principles of liberalism, while the Republican position itself to be conservative. Of course the party itself must have certain roles and functions within the political system of the United States.

Read More
3678 Words | 15 Pages

Nuclear energy may be the solution that eliminates our concern for energy production in the future, but it still remains a huge issue for the environment. Despite its wide use in many developed countries, nuclear energy poses many threats to both the

Read More
862 Words | 4 Pages

Others say we need them to defend ourselves against nuclear attack if we get attacked. But, if no country had bombs to begin with we wouldn’t have to worry about nuclear

Read More
1429 Words | 6 Pages

The nuclear arms race was central to the Cold War and I believe that it is still significant because counties continue spending enormous amounts of money on nuclear weapon development and have disagreements over nuclear weapon testing. Because of the fact that the Cold War was in the 20th century and that the Cold War included world super powers, it was easy to find sources to answer my research question as it was well documented. This made answering my research question easy as well as the

Read More
1172 Words | 5 Pages

Most nations equipped with nuclear weapons claim that they rely on them for strategic defense, and they are vulnerable to various attacks without these destructive weapons. Even with the high risk of destruction and devastation, they would prefer to keep nuclear bombs active and ready to go when necessary. Scrapping nuclear weapons would work to a nation’s disadvantage because various hostile states are covertly acquiring nuclear weapons in large number. If they dismantle nuclear bombs, they will be vulnerable to attacks (Matsui). The United States has many pacts that say if countries get rid of some of their weapons they will get rid of some of there

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Trident

Related Topics

Open Document