
18 June 2012
Every pound spent on Trident is a pound less for meeting the real equipment needs of our armed forces.
Steve - Liverpool
18 June 2012
What's the export potential for these reactors? I don't disagree with this decision but it seems like double standards when you compare investment here against the "off the shelf" nonsense being propogated elsewhere. I'd like to see more investment elsewhere too - in stuff we can sell abroad and bring money into the country. March of the makers rather than sputum of the spin doctors please.
Michael - Hertfordshire
18 June 2012
If the Israeli Defence Force can deploy a perfectly credible nuclear deterrent with German built diesel electric subs, why can't we?
Sean - London
18 June 2012
Trident will never be replaced anyway - the astronomical costs and / or Scottish independence will guarantee that. Most people have now grasped this - it's just a few headbangers on the looney fringe of the Conservative Party who delude themselves that the UK will remain an nuclear power.
Dave - Edinburgh
18 June 2012
Dave - Edinburgh
This is for new SSBN's to replace the Vanguard's not Trident replacement which are good till 2042. Whatever we do we will need to maintain our engineering capability in nuclear powered technology.
Graham - High Wycombe
18 June 2012
Graham - Why? See Sean's comment above.
Dave - Edinburgh
18 June 2012
Sean - London
Because everytime an Israeli boat comes up to snorkel depth to re-charge its batteries, it can be detected. It is only the lack of a credible Hunter Killer Submarine or ASW Surface vessel from any of its opponents that allow Israel this luxury.
We could not operate an effective deterrance patrol with a diesel boat I'm afraid.
Rob - Telford
19 June 2012
Dave - Edinburgh
See Rob's comment below yours.
Graham - High Wycombe