£70 Billion for Trident replacement
Posted by: Rasher on 14 March 2007
Blimey!
I just can't imagine why this sort of expense on nuclear weapons can be justified when so many better things can be done with the money, except of course that the government don't seem to be able to improve things no matter how much they have to spend on things.
If all nuclear equipped countries spent their defence budget on tackling global warming, or cancer, wouldn't we all be a lot better off? We live in a very sad f***ed-up world.
I just can't imagine why this sort of expense on nuclear weapons can be justified when so many better things can be done with the money, except of course that the government don't seem to be able to improve things no matter how much they have to spend on things.
If all nuclear equipped countries spent their defence budget on tackling global warming, or cancer, wouldn't we all be a lot better off? We live in a very sad f***ed-up world.
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
£70 billion. Well perhaps Mr Brown could undo his Pension Raid Taxation, put a decent upgrade of Education into place, and rationalise the NHS properly with that! I cannot see a Trident replacement as being either popular or useful in the circumstances now. Germany seems to get along splendidly without this sort of thing. for one local and by now similar example. The US can and certainly will do its own thing. We do not have to follow blindly.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by Diode100
Without a nuclear deterent we will cease to be a player on the world stage. If we deny our politicians a world stage to execise their egos on we will be infringing their human rights - so is £70 billion really too big a sum to keep our politicans happy ?
Personally I think this government of ours is so incompetent that no matter how much of our money money they have at their disposal, they will still f*ck things up.
Personally I think this government of ours is so incompetent that no matter how much of our money money they have at their disposal, they will still f*ck things up.
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by Deane F
Does Britain have treaty obligations in respect of her military? ie: NATO.
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by Chris Kelly
Imagine how many railway carriages that would buy Adam!
This is a nuclear "deterrent". Who exactly are we deterring? And from what?
I am by no means a card-carrying CNDer, but this just seems totally barking mad. Eventually we'll get some wild-eyed megalomaniac in power who might actually use these things. That should really help global warming - not.
This is a nuclear "deterrent". Who exactly are we deterring? And from what?
I am by no means a card-carrying CNDer, but this just seems totally barking mad. Eventually we'll get some wild-eyed megalomaniac in power who might actually use these things. That should really help global warming - not.
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by Guido Fawkes
There no way we need a nuclear deterrent - we could just launch Gordon Brown at them the thought of him coming towards them should be enough to deter anybody - especially if he shouted the ultimate threat "I will run your economy".
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by wellyspyder
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
Blimey!
I just can't imagine why this sort of expense on nuclear weapons can be justified when so many better things can be done with the money, except of course that the government don't seem to be able to improve things no matter how much they have to spend on things.
If all nuclear equipped countries spent their defence budget on tackling global warming, or cancer, wouldn't we all be a lot better off? We live in a very sad f***ed-up world.
Yes unfortunately.
Also a great incentive for those countries who aspire to possess nuclear weapons or as GWB would put it as weapons of mass destruction. So Iran and North Korea, take careful note!
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by PJT
quote:Originally posted by Diode100:
Personally I think this government of ours is so incompetent that no matter how much of our money money they have at their disposal, they will still f*ck things up.
Not just your Govt...
Noones Life, Liberty or Wallet is safe while the Legistative Council is in session
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by Chris Kelly
If we want to deter somebody, why do we need so many warheads anyhow? Wouldn't one be enough? It's all total bollocks.
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
If a state or terrorist organisation which owned other Nuclear weapons was led by a complete madman, would it make any difference if we had the MAD [mutually assured destruction] deterent to answer it? At least in the Cold War we knew the Soviet leadership was actually rational and rather cautious. They only pushed things as far as they thought they could get away with it, and rather clever at that balance they were too!
ATB from Fredrik
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Rockingdoc
I am opposed to nuclear weapons. I was even a member of CND when young enough for that to be acceptable.
BUT I am not an expert on Defence and haven't spent my career staying abreast with what is going on in terms of international threat. Some members of the Civil Service and Government do this for a living, and many of them are likely to be brighter than a bunch of hi-fi geeks on a forum. Why do we assume that the very people we pay look after these decisions are likely to be wrong? Isn't it a bit like bursting in on a complex neurosurgical operation and saying "you don't want to be sticking that knife in there"?
BUT I am not an expert on Defence and haven't spent my career staying abreast with what is going on in terms of international threat. Some members of the Civil Service and Government do this for a living, and many of them are likely to be brighter than a bunch of hi-fi geeks on a forum. Why do we assume that the very people we pay look after these decisions are likely to be wrong? Isn't it a bit like bursting in on a complex neurosurgical operation and saying "you don't want to be sticking that knife in there"?
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Roy T
With New Labour and New Tory both voting for the first step in process to acquire a replacement for Trident does this then mean that some will be voting LibDem at the next election? IIRC this was in the New Labour election manifesto so what is wrong with following up on manifesto aims, pledges and aspirations? After all you can't pick and mix from the manifesto when you vote for a party can you? With this vote being just one step in the process towards a replacement the only money to be spent on this project up until a go no-go decision is taken will be much smaller than the total project figure that has been flashed around the country via the Red Tops and may well in line with other items of central spending that may or may not ever see the light of day.
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Rasher
What the government are failing to accept is that the threat in 17 years time, when this all comes into use, is from terrorism, ie, the hidden enemy within. What are they going to do; point nuclear warheads at Willesden Green?
Nuclear weapons as a deterrent are obselete and designed for a world that has long gone. I can't understand the stupidity and lack of foresight. 17 years is a long time for the world to change, err....that's like 1990 to now! We didn't have PC's or the internet, or email. Look how fast the world changes now. This is absolute madness. How can we possibly prepare now for 2024!
Nuclear weapons as a deterrent are obselete and designed for a world that has long gone. I can't understand the stupidity and lack of foresight. 17 years is a long time for the world to change, err....that's like 1990 to now! We didn't have PC's or the internet, or email. Look how fast the world changes now. This is absolute madness. How can we possibly prepare now for 2024!
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by JamieWednesday
Either way. Whether nuclear weapons = right or wrong. Why does Trident (or Polaris for that matter) need replacing anyway? Several big nuclear warheads on several large sea launched missiles whether 5 or 50 years old is still a deterrent isn't it? If it is a deterrent (that former sub guy telling us that when he was last in the service they were all targeted on remote parts of the oceans was quite illuminating on many levels). Still pretty effective at mass killing I assume. It's not like they're going on ebay after being taken out of service is it? I know there's an argument along the lines of "..would we still want Lancasters in service..?" but it's a question of scale isn't it?
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Geoff C
The amount they want to spend on Trident makes the revised estimate (nearly 4 times higher?) for this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6453575.stm
...look like a drop in the ocean. How can these estimates always be so far out for these mega projects? Does this happen in other countries?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6453575.stm
...look like a drop in the ocean. How can these estimates always be so far out for these mega projects? Does this happen in other countries?
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Rasher
I'm still of the opinion that technology will hold the key to warfare in the future, like taking out and disabling computer systems by pulse bombs. This would be far more effective as a weapon in the future.
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Roy T
During the Cold War era strategic nuclear weapons did deter owner states from using them against each other in battle although during the same period any number of proxy wars were started in the name of the of The Great Game where proxy killed proxy in a series of long and bloody wars all across the globe. Have we seen the last of the set piece nuclear armed State vs State actions? For the most part I think the answer is yes and I think this also applies to newish members of the club such as Israel, India and Pakistan and possible soon to be new members Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Although I can not see strategic weapons being used in a stand up knock down last man standing sort of way I do feel they might still be used in a tactical way to settle something when diplomacy appears to have failed.
These tactical nuclear weapons could be mounted upon submarine launched cruise missiles or the could be dialed down variable yield strategic weapons as proposed in the new Trident systems. Let the MOD tell the politicians what is required for each and every scenario those in power would wish to peruse and then the politicians decide what to purchase or build and then how to fund their requirements.
Although I can not see strategic weapons being used in a stand up knock down last man standing sort of way I do feel they might still be used in a tactical way to settle something when diplomacy appears to have failed.
These tactical nuclear weapons could be mounted upon submarine launched cruise missiles or the could be dialed down variable yield strategic weapons as proposed in the new Trident systems. Let the MOD tell the politicians what is required for each and every scenario those in power would wish to peruse and then the politicians decide what to purchase or build and then how to fund their requirements.
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by GraemeH
Hey - we could all have 7 Olympic games instead...
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
Please! Let us get back to looking after two elements who deserve better. The young deserve a truly great education, and the old deserve the dignity of a reasonable survival betweeen being too old to work and death.
Forget the grandstanding "big head-line" wasting of money on such rubbish as the drug infested and corrupt Olympics and the nonsense of the "MAD" [see above for definition] response of nuclear weapons.
Common-sense has a part to play in my view.
Fredrik
Forget the grandstanding "big head-line" wasting of money on such rubbish as the drug infested and corrupt Olympics and the nonsense of the "MAD" [see above for definition] response of nuclear weapons.
Common-sense has a part to play in my view.
Fredrik
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Roy T
A few facts and figures The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent: Defence White Paper 2006 (Cm 6994).
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Jo Sharp
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Germany seems to get along splendidly without this sort of thing. for one local and by now similar example.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Frederik,
Yes,
a. because we wouldn't let them have strategic nuclear weapons after WW2...
and
b. they are happy to be covered by France, the UK and the USA.....
And in the Cold War when they had UK and US Cruise, Pershing 2 and Lance stationed on their soil it made them a nice target, but they had no control over their use.
regards,
Jo
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
If you examine my earlier post then you will see that I consider the Nuclear option as hopeless against terrorists. As for North Korea and Iran, their targets are most likely China and Isreal respectively. Neither of these are situations over which the UK has any influence!
Perhaps the EU should have a single Nuclear deterent for mutual benefit, and we might as well forget the US as it is no less of a rogue state than the Iran, in my view.
They [or at least the capital interests that run the country - they are demonstably not democratic in the European sense] are not going to risk their own skins for little old Britain, much as Britain ignored the Czechs in 1937/8, and tried hard to ignore the Poles in 1939, and then sold them down the river to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta [under US pressure for sure, and against Churchill's instincts for farness - what was euphistically called "real politic"]. You can trust the US to do absolutley nothing more than what suits their own interest, and British interests don't suit. We, in UK, should learn from that. We have greater co-incidence of interest with our European neigbours now, and seeming almost none with the Governing Elite in the US.
ATB from Fredrik
ATB from Fredrik
Perhaps the EU should have a single Nuclear deterent for mutual benefit, and we might as well forget the US as it is no less of a rogue state than the Iran, in my view.
They [or at least the capital interests that run the country - they are demonstably not democratic in the European sense] are not going to risk their own skins for little old Britain, much as Britain ignored the Czechs in 1937/8, and tried hard to ignore the Poles in 1939, and then sold them down the river to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta [under US pressure for sure, and against Churchill's instincts for farness - what was euphistically called "real politic"]. You can trust the US to do absolutley nothing more than what suits their own interest, and British interests don't suit. We, in UK, should learn from that. We have greater co-incidence of interest with our European neigbours now, and seeming almost none with the Governing Elite in the US.
ATB from Fredrik
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by Roy T
quote:Perhaps the EU should have a single Nuclear deterent for mutual benefit
An idea that has been around for some time but I fear it may not be workable due to the many caveats that are placed upon the operation of national forces by politicians with a weather eye out for the next national election. As some have already alluded to many wish to shelter under the NATO umbrella but only a very few wish to stand in the raging storm getting wet while keeping other warm, dry and secure. May I burn in hell for quoting the Telegraph but I feel this illustrates a view held by some as to why NATO in long run may not be all that it is cracked up to be and that a little extra something may be a good idea.
Posted on: 15 March 2007 by acad tsunami
£70 Billion - how many nurses and how many teachers would that pay? I'm against it and I will protest about it. Voting is not enough. One has to stand up and be counted more often than once every few years.
Posted on: 16 March 2007 by wellyspyder
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
If you examine my earlier post then you will see that I consider the Nuclear option as hopeless against terrorists. As for North Korea and Iran, their targets are most likely China and Isreal respectively. Neither of these are situations over which the UK has any influence!
Not sure if Iran will do this. Look at Iran today. It is thriving.
Now North Korea is another story. It is poor beyond imagination. Well, at least with its nuclear threat, it managed to get some foreign money. Now how much of this money will end up for the people is debatable.
quote:
You can trust the US to do absolutley nothing more than what suits their own interest, and British.....
ATB from Fredrik
ATB from Fredrik
Damm right you can be sure about this.
Posted on: 22 March 2007 by Deane F
Couldn't the British government just tax rich people more? You'd soon have the 70 billion quid, and nobody gets hurt.