Trident becomes easyer to use

[Plane]

Analysts said the device - called the Arming, Fusing and Firing (AF&F) system - would make the Trident system more effective because the weapons' power, impact and radioactive fallout could be changed depending on the target.
The Mark 4A system is a new version of the older design currently fitted in the Trident missiles.




http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2033401,00.html

[Michael Tee]

If they make their nukes more versatile, don't the Russians and Chinese have to do the same with theirs?  Or risk nuclear blackmail if they don't?

[Plane]

If they make their nukes more versatile, don't the Russians and Chinese have to do the same with theirs?  Or risk nuclear blackmail if they don't?

From the British?

I suppose so , but we have had a Nuclear blackmail in two directions with them snce Stalin and Mao decided that they wanted one.
We are accustomed to it now.

Did you think that Russian and Chineese wepons were not being maintained?

[_JS]

The British have long had a debate on whether or not they need to keep nuclear weapons or not. It is currently quite costly for them to maintain a nuclear arsenal as well as keeping it updated (the current plans for Trident and the submarines to use it is expected to run around 15 billion pounds).

Many Brits have been asking, "why?"

The Labour Party long supported unilateral dismantling of the UK nuclear arsenal, but that policy changed under Smith's leadership as well as Blair's. Right now it is more of a question of keeping defence contract jobs than it is whether or not their is a real need for nuclear weapons. The British have far fewer nuclear missiles than the French and are generally protected by the Americans anyway.

[Plane]

Many Brits have been asking, "why?"

Could this be an attitude current in Iran or Israel?


If Britain needs none , why does Iran?

Or vice versa?