Before reading this please be aware of the following: 1.I'm not a journo. 2.I'm not a member of CND/New Labour. 3.I believe if everyone else has them so should we. -------------------------------------------------------- Just had a long and boring evening with my father in law. He is as unmilitary as they come, wasn't even in the cadets, and can best be described as a Daily Mail reader. This is my problem. Last week in said rag there was an article, I saw it and it had a lovely picture, about the desision Hoon and Blair must make shortly (if they win the next election) about this countries nuclear deterant or even if we should have one. Trident's shelf life runs out in 2015 so a decision must be made by 2010 if we are going to keep a nuclear weapons capability. If we don't the only European country that will have them is France which is reason enough to keep them in my opinion!!! So because of this the following ideas are floating round my head ( very scary thought in itself): 1. Should this country have a nuclear weapons system in any form. If you decide YES please continue....if NO don't bother. 2. If yes should it be submarine based as it is at present, even though this places a huge burden on an already stretched budget. Trident must be replaced either with a new missle or Trident II or III or whatever the americans will sell us.( The sailors can go to the new aircraft carriers which the navy doesn't have enough sailors for if you think it shouldn't be submarine based, so no job losses). 3. If not submarine based, what? Would the RAF do it is as they did before Polaris/Trident with the new Typhoon. Would this be a practicle delivery system for Blair/Bush's new world order? Or how about, God forbid, giving it to the Army and in particular, the Royal Artillery( no offense meant). I believe AS90 was designed to fire a nuclear 155mm shell for 'tactical' puposes if there is such a thing but for cost effectivenes it is a present and viable system. We would just need the shells!!!! 4. Would the Army/RA want to take on that level of responsibility? What systems would have to be implimented to make it a reality or is it just a hair brained idea. I'm trying to put together what I believe are coherent ideas/theories and if they rant/babble on I apologies.(Sorry for any spelling mistakes too.) Personnaly I believe Blair will keep the bomb in a submarine based weapons platform at it just means an upgrading of the missle itself not the platform or the weapon itself but the arguement I put across did not convince me at times so help. This is a case of closing the door after the horse has gone but would make me feel better. Cheers Patch.