Trident may cost £167bn - is it worth it?

B

bindex

Len McCluskey
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,978
Edit My Images
No
According to an MP's and Reuters calculations based on official figures Trident could cost far more than expected, link HERE.

I'll make no comment other than to ask in the present age of austerity could the money be better spent?
 
Not if you potentially have a wannabe Prime Minister unwilling to use them!
 
The answers to your questions are no and yes!
 
Seeing as we have had no major war since 1945 the cost is worth it in my view. Wonder how much a conventional 3 year would cost?
War against terrorism won't be quelled by the nuclear option but war against any other major country will regardless of whether it is likely or not. Keeps a lot of people employed in high class engineering too.
Matt
 
bindex said:
According to an MP's and Reuters calculations based on official figures Trident could cost far more than expected, link HERE.

I'll make no comment other than to ask in the present age of austerity could the money be better spent?
Click to expand...

From the article that amount is the projected spend from now till 2060, so around £3.6bn a year. The annual defence budget is £45bn a year according this page, so Trident is not really a large amount of the defence budget, especially considering the ultimate protection it gives the UK.
 
Absolutely not justified, spend the money on the armed forces to bolster our defence capabilities.
Only takes one nuke and we're all ..proverbially pregnant..the world over.
 
A necessary evil.

All well and good having conventional forces except you can't choose your enemy (unless they are small. weak and have no atomic deterrent)
 
Laudrup said:
It's the ultimate deterrent. You can bet if Iraq had nuclear weapons we wouldn't have been invading.
Click to expand...

And if the Ukraine had kept theirs they would not have Comrade Putin dancing about.
 
And Germany's lack of nukes is why they've been continually invaded? o_O

The only countries we'd ever consider using nukes against are those with missile shields rendering our systems ineffective.
Stop wasting money just to justify our place on the UN Defense Council and spend it on conventional forces we actually use. Some planes for our aircraft carriers would be a start.
 
Llamaman said:
p
The only countries we'd ever consider using nukes against are those with missile shields rendering our systems ineffective.
Click to expand...

Not even the US has a missile shield that is considering reliable enough to be even partially successful defence against a nuclear attack. It only takes a single missile to get through to cause huge damage.
 
Dave1 said:
Not even the US has a missile shield that is considering reliable enough to be even partially successful defence against a nuclear attack. It only takes a single missile to get through to cause huge damage.
Click to expand...
And it would only take a single missile to get through to provoke a larger response in return. Which is one of the many reasons why we'd never do it.

You ignored my other point, of course. If nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent, how come most of the world get by without them?
 
Llamaman said:
And it would only take a single missile to get through to provoke a larger response in return. Which is one of the many reasons why we'd never do it.
Click to expand...

That's how MAD works.

You ignored my other point, of course. If nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent, how come most of the world get by without them?
Click to expand...

Most of the world doesn't, most of the world is allied to one or other of the sides with nuclear weapons.

Even your example of Germany is flawed as Germany does have nuclear weapons, just not under the control of the German government.

The US is stationing up to 20 of a new type of B 61-12 nuclear bombs at the Büchel air base in the Eifel region. Altogether they have 80 times the explosive power of the nuclear bomb exploded in Hiroshima.

At the same time, additional nuclear weapons locations in Europe are being upgraded with new B 61-12 nuclear bombs. These include the airbases in Incirlik, Turkey and Aviano, Italy.

Der Spiegel already reported last year that the first bombs costing about $10 billion should be available in Europe in 2020. It said that the expansion of the air base in Büchel will cost an estimated $154 million and that Germany will cover one-fifth of this.

According to “Frontal 21”, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) defence policymaker Thomas Hitschler confirmed that the German government is going to invest €112 million in Büchel over the next few years. Among other things, the runway of the airfield will be fitted with a modern instrument landing system. In plain language, that would mean, “new, even more dangerous American nuclear bombs are due to come to Büchel and, in the case of war, would be directed to their targets by German Tornados.”
Click to expand...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/09/26/nuke-s26.html
 
Ok, then... how about Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland.... shall I go on?

Even if we leap to the fiction that they are all protected by stationing a third-party deterrent... we could do the same and save ourselves billions? Its unlikely we'll become mortal enemies of France AND the US in the foreseeable future.
 
Dave1 said:
That's how MAD works.
Click to expand...
MAD is based upon the flawed assumption that if one side has nukes, they'll get used. There's only piece of data to support that view, but dozens of subsequent conflicts which prove it not to the case.
 
Llamaman said:
MAD is based upon the flawed assumption that if one side has nukes, they'll get used. There's only piece of data to support that view, but dozens of subsequent conflicts which prove it not to the case.
Click to expand...

Conflicts maybe, but no full scale invasions of a nuclear power.
 
Dave1 said:
Conflicts maybe, but no full scale invasions of a nuclear power.
Click to expand...
The Falklands looked a lot like an invasion to the people living there.

And numerous countries under the protection of nuclear powers have been invaded - not least Kuwait.
 
Llamaman said:
The Falklands looked a lot like an invasion to the people living there.
Click to expand...

But it's not the UK, which is what is being discussed, and the Argentines believed the UK wouldn't defend the Falklands.

And numerous countries under the protection of nuclear powers have been invaded - not least Kuwait.
Click to expand...

So if the Kuwaiti army had even battlefield nukes you believe that Iraq would still have invaded? I doubt it.
 
So... Germany being under the protection of the US is a deterrent, but Kuwait being under the US' protection isn't.
Right.
Clear as mud.
 
It seems to be a rather large membership fee of the club.

If we gave it up, what exactly would be the danger.
 
simon ess said:
It seems to be a rather large membership fee of the club.

If we gave it up, what exactly would be the danger.
Click to expand...
1. Risk losing seat on UN Security Council
2. Not sitting in the top table of NATO, where the best petit fours are.
3. Feeling inferior to the French.
 
Last edited:
We have been spending a million a day on this program for about 4 years already.
 
Oh and we might not have a uk steel plant to make the sheet steel needed for it...
 
Llamaman said:
1. Risk losing seat on UN Security Council
2. Not sitting in the top table of NATO, where the best petit fours are.
3. Feeling inferior to the French.
Click to expand...

3 ................. Only the French could fall into that category :D
 
AndyB1976 said:
A necessary evil.

All well and good having conventional forces except you can't choose your enemy (unless they are small. weak and have no atomic deterrent)
Click to expand...
Evil - yes

Necessary - no

Have America, France and the UK been attacked in the past 15 years? yes

Has the nuclear deterrent done them any good in halting that?

Did we launch torpedoes at the Belgrano because our ultimate deterrent was a success?

As ive said before we need a certifiable lunatic to launch our deterrent and it aint going to happen- spend the money more wisely and give up the seat on the security council
 
Its a bit of a tough call for me, i see why its needed but i have seen its cost. I also could make a fair bit off it. But do i really want it?
Not really no. I'm not a fan of nukes as weapons, id rather the money, if it has to be invested in the armed forces, invested in other programs.
 
Cut rediculous foreign aid that's not needed and keep the nukes.. Job done.

If we get rid of them, thousands of highly skilled jobs will be lost.. How is that a good thing?
 
£167 billion gets us a lot of other kit, astute, carrier, tanks, aircraft etc. All would keep people in work.
 
Roughly speaking for each job in BAE 10 others are employed. From figures i saw, some time ago, by the northwest aerospace aliance
 
TCR4x4 said:
Cut rediculous foreign aid that's not needed and keep the nukes.. Job done.
Click to expand...

Yes, lets keep the ability to deliver £167bn in a special type of foreign aid somewhere to kill many but not the ability to provide aid to lots and save lives- i'm sure there's a parallel universe where this makes sense
 
I'm sure all the staff employed by AWE would love to be building tanks.
Jim_Tod said:
Is that the only thing highly skilled jobs can be used for?
Click to expand...

When your speciality is nuclear weapons, yes.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I'm sure all the staff employed by AWE would love to be building tanks.


When your speciality is nuclear weapons, yes.
Click to expand...

Nonsense- your speciality might be nuclear physics but wont be nuclear weapons- they need more thought going into avoiding a bang as creating one. As UK embarking on a programme of new nuclear power then perhaps the specialism could be put to benefiting UK civil nuclear programme reducing the need to import french and chinese engineers although too late to avoid the market distortion in energy pricing signed up to by the government.
 
Most of the jobs on the trident replacement program are transferable to other programs, even the ones at AWE.
 
In the grand scheme of things there are only a few that aint.
 
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Hacker: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent.
Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.
Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.
Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!

Sir Humphrey: [About Trident] It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you! What more can I say?
Hacker: Only that it costs 15 billion pounds and we don't need it.
Sir Humphrey: [begrudgingly] Well you could say that about anything at Harrods.
 
Government Chief Scientific Adviser: Prime Minister, you believe in the nuclear deterrent?
Jim Hacker: Oh, yes.
CSA: Why?
Hacker: Pardon?
CSA: Why?
Hacker: Because it deters.
CSA: Whom?
Hacker: Pardon?
CSA: Whom? Whom does it deter?
Hacker: The Russians from attacking us.
CSA: Why?
Hacker: Pardon?
CSA: Why?
Hacker: They know if they launched an attack, I'd press the button.
CSA: You would?
Hacker: Well, wouldn't I?
CSA: Well, would you?
Hacker: At the last resort, yes, I certainly would... Well, I think I certainly would. Yes.
CSA: And what is the last resort?
Hacker: If the Russians invaded western Europe.
CSA: You only have 12 hours to decide, so you're saying the last resort is the first response?
Hacker: Am I?
CSA: You don't need to worry. Why should the Russians annex the whole of Europe? They can't even control Afghanistan. No, if they try anything, it will be salami tactics.
Hacker: Salami tactics?
CSA: Slice by slice. One small piece at a time... So will you press the button if they invade West Berlin?
Hacker: It all depends.
CSA On what? No... Scenario one. Riots in West Berlin, buildings in flames. East German fire brigade crosses the border to help. Would you press the button...?
Hacker: *Shakes head*
CSA: The East German police come with them. The button...?
Hacker: *Shakes head*
CSA: Then some troops, more troops just for riot control, they say. And then the East German troops are replaced by Russian troops. Button...?
Hacker: *Shakes head*
CSA: Then the Russian troops don't go. They are invited to stay to support civilian administration. The civilian administration closes roads and Tempelhof Airport. Now you press the button?
Hacker: I need time to think about it.
CSA: You have 12 hours.
Hacker: Have I? You're inventing this.
CSA: You are Prime Minister today. The phone might ring now from NATO HQ.
*PHONE RINGS*
Bernard: Hello...? Yes. NATO HQ, Prime Minister.
Hacker: *Looks ashen*
Bernard: Can you address their annual conference in April?
Hacker: I thought I could... I'm not so sure now.
----

There's a lot of truth in fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top