Britain backs renewal of Trident nuclear programme … Trident programme involves four new vessels at an estimated cost of $54bn over the next 20 years. British prime minister affirms she would order nuclear strike … Despite opposition from the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and some in the opposition Labour Party, parliament approved the Scottish-based nuclear-armed Trident submarines by 472 to 117 votes. – Al Jazeera

Why is Britain going to pay nearly $55 billion to "renew its ageing nuclear weapons system?"

It consists of four submarines with Trident missiles.

Why does it cost so much?

What are they doing?

Why isn't it reported on in more detail?

It's not a popular system. Naval nuclear weapons technician William McNeilly recently published an expose of it.

He documented 30 alleged safety and security flaws in an 18-page document: "failure to check ID cards, fire risks from rubbish, the flouting of safety procedures, and a cover-up of a collision with a French nuclear submarine."

There's certainly a lot of carelessness surrounding these devastating nuclear weapons.

For us, nukes resemble a dominant social theme. At least partial propaganda in other words.

Information that obviously makes people more fearful about the future – and more inclined to accept the technocratic construct of a globalist society.

It is extremely hard to observe how they operate mechanically because you can't get close enough to see one in action. You can't even film them close up.

Their inner-workings are classified by military security so they cannot be explained.

Their history has been disseminated basically by military apparatuses. Reporters can only relay what they have been told.

For years, only ONE reporter was given access to the development and testing of nuclear weapons. The narrative was thus created and perpetuated by the Pentagon, which lies as a matter of routine.

For many years, talking about nuclear weapons in any detail in the US and Japan was punishable by death. The laws still exist though not enforced anymore.

These laws were passed right after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings – as if to make sure people wouldn't speak about the issue.

Nuclear weapons benefit the political class immensely. The average corrupt political sociopath is immediately ennobled.

One day he is trying to figure out how to embezzle a couple of extra illegal bucks from the taxpayer. The next, he is standing in a marble-lined hall and delivering a speech about how he will not under any circumstances authorize the "murder of millions" via the nuclear weapons under his control.

Or even worse, as Prime Minister Theresa May just did, he will say "yes" he is willing to authorize such murders.

In her first statement in parliament as prime minister on Monday, Theresa May said Britain needed to retain its nuclear deterrent, which had been an insurance policy for the country's security for nearly 50 years.

May did not hesitate when a member of the opposition asked whether she would be willing to order a nuclear strike.

"Yes," May said.

The nuclear debate has not traveled far since the beginning of July, 1946 when the famous Bikini Island nuclear tests began.

Two years ago, the controversial but prolific investigator Miles Mathis – an artist and mathematician – published a debunking HERE entitled, The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked."

And here:

… For more proof, we can go to Google. You can get a picture of the Bikini Atoll today from Google Earth. That's dated 2013, not 1945. We are told the locals can't live there now because of radioactivity, but we see at least three proofs against that.

One, we see lots of plant life both on and offshore. Radioactivity affects plants just as it affects animals, so the island should be barren.

Remember, the Bikini Atoll wasn't said to be blasted by only Able and Baker. It was blasted 23 times, including three of the biggest blasts ever from US testing: the 4.5 megaton Navajo and the 5 megaton Tewa, in 1956; and the 15 megaton Bravo in 1954.