3 ms·

well you could abandon the silos completely and only have air and submarine delivered missiles (e.g. UK only has submarines)

• nickelpro 3y ago
  That would barely address the articles concerns, as those warheads still need storage, still cost money, still generate waste, still require environmental impact reports for their construction, movement, and storage. The actual, physical silo is only about a third of what this article takes issue with. The overwhelming majority is focused on its nature as a nuclear silo, and the nuclear aspect doesn't change even if you get rid of the silo.
• cameldrv 3y ago
  Now that the UK is down to only submarines, the anti-nuclear people try to get rid of that. A couple of years ago, RT and Wilileaks trotted out this sailor that claimed that the British Trident fleet was unsafe and so they should retire it, and incidentally eliminate the British nuclear deterrent. This was right before a vote to authorize multiple years of funding for it. Obviously the best arms control treaty is the one your enemy imposes on themselves.