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

AndyB1976 said:
Thatcher torpedoed the Belgrano in international waters, some call it a war crime, I call it having balls and also irrelevant to a discussion on the purpose of a nuclear deterrent once you understand the justification of such a weapons system.
Click to expand...

You miss the point of my post. I'm not interested in whether the Belgrano sinking was a war crime or not. I'm pointing out that our nuclear deterrent did us no good when the Falklands were invaded- the Argentinians weren't interested that the UK had a nuclear deterrent and went to war with us. We did however struggle massively to put together a task force to project conventional forces to retake the islands and continue to this day to send troops into combat with inadequate and ineffectual equipment.

AndyB1976 said:
The Nuclear Deterrent is to deter a nuclear attack. India and Pakistan have had multiple skirmishes and haven't annihilated each other. Culturally the Japanese found no honour in surrender, yet soon did faced with assured destruction.
Click to expand...

So in your view we are spending a further £167bn to deter America, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan , India and possibly North Korea from launching a nuclear attack on the UK. The ends to which are either some lunatic has been put in command in one of these countries and wants to destroy the world, in which case the deterrent isn't a deterrent as the lunatic has taken over the asylum. At the same time our conventional troops are given inadequate outdated ineffectual equipment for the wars we send them into.

Government is also about priorities for today and going forward to create a better place for it's citizens- not simply hanging onto the past because it makes you feel important.
 
Jim_Tod said:
You miss the point of my post. I'm not interested in whether the Belgrano sinking was a war crime or not. I'm pointing out that our nuclear deterrent did us no good when the Falklands were invaded- the Argentinians weren't interested that the UK had a nuclear deterrent and went to war with us. We did however struggle massively to put together a task force to project conventional forces to retake the islands and continue to this day to send troops into combat with inadequate and ineffectual equipment.
Click to expand...

Not true about the modern equipment.

The deterrent is about use of chemical or nuclear weapons against us. Not to deter against war.
 
andyscott said:
Not true about the modern equipment.
Click to expand...


Not sure I agree, the first thing that came in to my head was the use of 'snatch' land rovers in Iraq (or Afghanistan I forget which)
Weak armoured and not well protected against Road side bombs.
 
Major Eazy said:
It's not worth it.

What's the point of making a bomb but don't use it.
Click to expand...

The answer to that is quite simple, many of 'the big boys' (and plenty of politicians too) stand to make themselves a nice healthy fortune out of the myth that the world needs a nuclear arsenal.
 
Last edited:
andyscott said:
They are totally safe :) oh and its funny how many jocks in the navy actually want a posting there, because they are so scared of them.

I think the jocks need to stop deep frying everything, as heart disease kills more people in Scotland than nukes do, but where is the outrage about chip shops?
Click to expand...

As a resident of the town where the deep fried Mars Bar was invented and having suffered 2 heart attacks, I have to state I am outraged by neither nukes nor chip shops. In fact, I am quite partial to both.
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
As a resident of the town where the deep fried Mars Bar was invented and having suffered 2 heart attacks, I have to state I am outraged neither nukes nor chip shops. In fact, I am quite partial to both.
Click to expand...

They are rather delicious
 
eeyore said:
Not sure I agree, the first thing that came in to my head was the use of 'snatch' land rovers in Iraq (or Afghanistan I forget which)
Weak armoured and not well protected against Road side bombs.
Click to expand...

that was a significant time ago. These were effective initially in the first Iraq invasion, then on enduring operations, the enemy changed tactics, a replacement was quickly found. The new vehicles are fit for purpose. Of course, even main battle tanks can be destroyed, with the right weapon systems. For some reason, the public believe that when you are in armour you are safe, this is not true, it just mitigates some of the risk. In the past maybe, but thankfully a long op in Afghanistan has allowed good kit to be developed. Every injury pattern is reported on and fed back to the R&D team to constantly strive for better kit.

As for personal equipment, this works. I have seen many soldiers alive because of the decent body armour and kit. 1st hand at point of injury.
 
andyscott said:
that was a significant time ago. These were effective initially in the first Iraq invasion, then on enduring operations, the enemy changed tactics, a replacement was quickly found. The new vehicles are fit for purpose. Of course, even main battle tanks can be destroyed, with the right weapon systems. For some reason, the public believe that when you are in armour you are safe, this is not true, it just mitigates some of the risk. In the past maybe, but thankfully a long op in Afghanistan has allowed good kit to be developed. Every injury pattern is reported on and fed back to the R&D team to constantly strive for better kit.

As for personal equipment, this works. I have seen many soldiers alive because of the decent body armour and kit. 1st hand at point of injury.
Click to expand...

It a bit subjective I know, but some times I feel we could do better with our troops.
Where I work we do produce some amazing kit for all the forces but not all of it goes to all the troops, mainly due to budget constraints.
 
mj4456 said:
Can we test one against Calais?
Click to expand...

No... not a good idea.
I realise that things haven't been the same between us and the French since Agincourt, and I doubt that Waterloo and Trafalgar helped much either. And let's face it in the first half of the 20th Century it almost seemed as if when we wanted a big war that we may as well have it in France anyway. However Calais is a bit too close to us to be chucking nukes around even if you do consider £167bn to be spiffing good value!
 
Jim_Tod said:
You miss the point of my post. I'm not interested in whether the Belgrano sinking was a war crime or not. I'm pointing out that our nuclear deterrent did us no good when the Falklands were invaded- the Argentinians weren't interested that the UK had a nuclear deterrent and went to war with us. We did however struggle massively to put together a task force to project conventional forces to retake the islands and continue to this day to send troops into combat with inadequate and ineffectual equipment.



So in your view we are spending a further £167bn to deter America, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan , India and possibly North Korea from launching a nuclear attack on the UK. The ends to which are either some lunatic has been put in command in one of these countries and wants to destroy the world, in which case the deterrent isn't a deterrent as the lunatic has taken over the asylum. At the same time our conventional troops are given inadequate outdated ineffectual equipment for the wars we send them into.

Government is also about priorities for today and going forward to create a better place for it's citizens- not simply hanging onto the past because it makes you feel important.
Click to expand...

In which case lets scrap our forces - after all, an army is simply a deterrent to stop people walking in and taking over* - Even a madman knows that launching a missile against us would see us send one back, and even madmen would not want that. Our nuclear deterrent simply help with regards to those countries like Korea, Russia etc... and are not there if say one of our islands was invaded like the falklands.

*obviously does not apply if the army is French.
 
cambsno said:
In which case lets scrap our forces - after all, an army is simply a deterrent to stop people walking in and taking over* - Even a madman knows that launching a missile against us would see us send one back, and even madmen would not want that. Our nuclear deterrent simply help with regards to those countries like Korea, Russia etc... and are not there if say one of our islands was invaded like the falklands.
Click to expand...

Lets not scrap our conventional forces- lets define them as you say they should be- a deterrent to stop people walking in and taking over - so they should be at a size commensurate with the need to protect our country from realistic invasion and to provide overseas aid through peacekeeping functions sanctioned legitimately by the UN. Once defined then lets provide them with adequate facilities, training and equipment to be effective at their jobs.

A madman doesn't care whether we lob one back- that's why they're mad. They also don't know if we'd lob one back- that's a decision which requires the UK chain of command to be prepared to act as madmen to kill masses of innocent civilians- presumably it's always the other guy who is the madman and then this falls. Most of the madmen we'd be up against are also quite capable of putting a nuke in a boat or plane and sailing it up the Thames/ Solent/ Clyde and not actually lobbing a missile- are we clear who brought down the plane from Egypt to Russia recently and do we lob bombs back at all the suspects?

At this time we have aircraft carriers with no aircraft in sight which can only be about projecting force if they ever get used and no maritime reconnaisance planes for an island nation and no plans to get any. We wish to compound the aircraft carrier issue by spending £167bn+ for trident renewal and continue to borrow maritime reconnaisance planes from our current allies whilst our troops on the ground have inadequate equipment and an overall lack of supplies to last any real length of time . The defence equivalent of fur coat and no knickers I think.

All this while pointing to the mad bogeyman that Trident is meant to shield us from and ignoring the irony that we wont use it against the 95% of other countries in the world who don't need to bankrupt themselves to buy it and would need a madman in charge to use it against any of the other 5% and even then only if they lob missiles at us first and don't just invade with conventional forces.
 
Of course a madman will care as they would not want their country wiped out.

In defense you need to match your opponent. If they only have knives then we need knives. If they have guns then we need guns and so on.

Actually what we or politicians think should be irrelevant. This decision should be in the hands of those at the top of the armed forces.
 
cambsno said:
Of course a madman will care as they would not want their country wiped out.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the term madman if you believe this

Dictionary definition of madman-
  1. a man who is insane, esp one who behaves violently; lunatic
Why would a violent lunatic care if their country is wiped out. If you have enough empathy not to wish your country wiped out then you have enough empathy not to wish other innocent people to die and therefore are unlikely to be a violent lunatic

cambsno said:
In defense you need to match your opponent. If they only have knives then we need knives. If they have guns then we need guns and so on.
Click to expand...

So explain why Argentina felt able to attack the Falklands when our 'defensive' capability included nuclear ballistic missiles, why Libya could bomb a jet over the UK and why terrorist organisations in fixed locations feel able to attack the UK when our defensive capabilities involve the biggest bomb of all?

The argument for a nuclear deterrent falls on all of these issues. The only possible reason the UK may continue to wish to have a nuclear deterrent is that it is the one thing that sustains a permanent place at the top table of the UN security council simply on the basis of historic timing- we were there before others then imposed a non proliferation treaty which has been ignored by a few other countries. Why do we need a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council? Does it benefit the population of the UK? Is it worth the money we pay to America for the missiles to restrict our economic growth and investment?

cambsno said:
Actually what we or politicians think should be irrelevant. This decision should be in the hands of those at the top of the armed forces.
Click to expand...

I suggest you have a read of these

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/23/army-chiefs-trident

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...efs-go-cold-on-nuclear-deterrent-8180688.html

renewing Trident is not a decision left to the armed forces but a governmental political decision. I assume that as the armed forces don't really want Trident that you will take the view that we shouldn't have it and spend the money saved elsewhere.
 
The nuclear deterrent will do nothing to prevent the minor conflicts that have occurred since the end of WW2. What has not happened since then is all out total war that obliterated cities, costing millions of lives. It could be argued that this scale of conflict has not occurred because of the nuclear weapon balance. Putin annexed Ukraine confident that the conflict could/would not escalate beyond conventional weapons. He could not be certain of this if he decided to 'rebuild' the USSR, by invading for example, Poland...

Trident worth the money? Hard to say, but I don't think that it is a coincidence that there has not been another full on world war in the 60-years that nukes have been held by the major powers.
 
Jim_Tod said:
You misunderstand the term madman if you believe this

Dictionary definition of madman-
  1. a man who is insane, esp one who behaves violently; lunatic
Why would a violent lunatic care if their country is wiped out. If you have enough empathy not to wish your country wiped out then you have enough empathy not to wish other innocent people to die and therefore are unlikely to be a violent lunatic



So explain why Argentina felt able to attack the Falklands when our 'defensive' capability included nuclear ballistic missiles, why Libya could bomb a jet over the UK and why terrorist organisations in fixed locations feel able to attack the UK when our defensive capabilities involve the biggest bomb of all?

The argument for a nuclear deterrent falls on all of these issues. The only possible reason the UK may continue to wish to have a nuclear deterrent is that it is the one thing that sustains a permanent place at the top table of the UN security council simply on the basis of historic timing- we were there before others then imposed a non proliferation treaty which has been ignored by a few other countries. Why do we need a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council? Does it benefit the population of the UK? Is it worth the money we pay to America for the missiles to restrict our economic growth and investment?



I suggest you have a read of these

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/23/army-chiefs-trident

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...efs-go-cold-on-nuclear-deterrent-8180688.html

renewing Trident is not a decision left to the armed forces but a governmental political decision. I assume that as the armed forces don't really want Trident that you will take the view that we shouldn't have it and spend the money saved elsewhere.
Click to expand...

We are not going to use nuclear against the likes of the argies or smaller scale stuff. That's where the regular army comes in. The nukes are there to protect against other nuclear threats. Classic standoff.

Your view on madmen, well hitler had no empathy for others yet (until the end) had no wish for Germany to be wiped out.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
We are not going to use nuclear against the likes of the argies or smaller scale stuff. That's where the regular army comes in. The nukes are there to protect against other nuclear threats. Classic standoff.

Your view on madmen, well hitler had no empathy for others yet (until the end) had no wish for Germany to be wiped out.
Click to expand...

Have you given up on the view that the armed forces should decide priorities on nuclear weapons then and you're back to Trident at any cost? We've gone from 15bn to 167bn+ in around 10 years with no signs of an end so question tp ypu, at what figure if any would Trident become too expensive for you?

Hitler did not have nuclear weapons nor did the allies at the end of the war in Europe. The point is irrelevant as to the type of madmen in charge during that conflict. We now know what these weapons are capable of and the atrocious loss of innocent lives in using them should be a deterrent in wanting to have them as we know they will not be used- let's stop wasting billions of pounds on a white elephant to keep a place at a table with increasing irrelevance to the actual threats going on in the world and start using it to invest in infrastructure to get UK working again.
 
Jim_Tod said:
Have you given up on the view that the armed forces should decide priorities on nuclear weapons then and you're back to Trident at any cost? We've gone from 15bn to 167bn+ in around 10 years with no signs of an end so question tp ypu, at what figure if any would Trident become too expensive for you?

Hitler did not have nuclear weapons nor did the allies at the end of the war in Europe. The point is irrelevant as to the type of madmen in charge during that conflict. We now know what these weapons are capable of and the atrocious loss of innocent lives in using them should be a deterrent in wanting to have them as we know they will not be used- let's stop wasting billions of pounds on a white elephant to keep a place at a table with increasing irrelevance to the actual threats going on in the world and start using it to invest in infrastructure to get UK working again.
Click to expand...

In theory giving them up is fine, until there is one country left with them And then they have control over everyone else which is not good!

In terms of wasting money, it's not really a waste of 167bn as that is spent in design and manufacture as well as ongoing support, so many jobs directly and indirectly would be affected by this - so many scientists, engineers, military plus the business that rely on those. Ok, I get the point that there would be better things to spend the money on (I.e. Let's build another x hospitals) but the 167 would be an investment to get us working (assuming the bulk is spent in the uk).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
cambsno said:
In theory giving them up is fine, until there is one country left with them And then they have control over everyone else which is not good!

In terms of wasting money, it's not really a waste of 167bn as that is spent in design and manufacture as well as ongoing support, so many jobs directly and indirectly would be affected by this - so many scientists, engineers, military plus the business that rely on those. Ok, I get the point that there would be better things to spend the money on (I.e. Let's build another x hospitals) but the 167 would be an investment to get us working (assuming the bulk is spent in the uk).
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you'll understand i dont fully agree. If there was only one remaining nuclear power, it's only in their interest to threaten to bomb if they want a specific resource however nuclear bombing removes that resource and the ability to access it. Because we currently have it doesn't mean we have to keep it and we're capable of becoming an addition to the 95% of countries who dont have and dont want it. We dont have control over Norway or Denmark because we have nuclear weapons and they dont, nor do we have any sway over Argentina in a similar position.

As for jobs, look at it this way- if we gave every one of the reported 13-15,000 jobs that rely on the nuclear weapons industry £1m each then that would cost us say £15bn. Most of the 13-15,000 people would use the money to stimulate the economy in simply buying things or in many cases developing alternative businesses around the skills base they have and in developing new sectors outside nuclear weapons- we could kick start new hi-tech jobs and industries and still leave £150bn for other infrastructure development whilst ridding ourselves of the moral issue of nuclear weapons that we wont use. This to me is a win win
 
Jim_Tod said:
As I'm sure you'll understand i dont fully agree. If there was only one remaining nuclear power, it's only in their interest to threaten to bomb if they want a specific resource however nuclear bombing removes that resource and the ability to access it.
Click to expand...
That all depends on whether or not the resource that is to be nuked is the same one that is wanted/needed...

i.e. "Give up your interests in 'x' or we nuke 'y'."
 
Jim_Tod said:
As I'm sure you'll understand i dont fully agree. If there was only one remaining nuclear power, it's only in their interest to threaten to bomb if they want a specific resource however nuclear bombing removes that resource and the ability to access it. Because we currently have it doesn't mean we have to keep it and we're capable of becoming an addition to the 95% of countries who dont have and dont want it. We dont have control over Norway or Denmark because we have nuclear weapons and they dont, nor do we have any sway over Argentina in a similar position.

As for jobs, look at it this way- if we gave every one of the reported 13-15,000 jobs that rely on the nuclear weapons industry £1m each then that would cost us say £15bn. Most of the 13-15,000 people would use the money to stimulate the economy in simply buying things or in many cases developing alternative businesses around the skills base they have and in developing new sectors outside nuclear weapons- we could kick start new hi-tech jobs and industries and still leave £150bn for other infrastructure development whilst ridding ourselves of the moral issue of nuclear weapons that we wont use. This to me is a win win
Click to expand...

So basically I need for you to be PM and for me to blag a job in the nuclear weapons industry!!!
 
cambsno said:
So basically I need for you to be PM and for me to blag a job in the nuclear weapons industry!!!
Click to expand...

Where are you based, i could go a beer with you after that remark[emoji28][emoji28][emoji28]

Obviously meant as an example of what else we could do with £167bn but great comeback
 
MatBin said:
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
Click to expand...
Ridiculous to suggest keeping weapons that could destroy the planet because it keeps some people in jobs!
 
As already said it's a huge waste of money and better spent elsewhere and could keep a lot more people employed in Scotland as well as the rest of the uk
 
snap-happy said:
You want nukes? Put them in your back yard then NOT in Scotland.
Click to expand...

The MOD can store them in my yard if they like. At least I won't have to worry about pikies stealing my deisel.
 
TCR4x4 said:
The MOD can store them in my yard if they like. At least I won't have to worry about pikies stealing my deisel.
Click to expand...

You'll probably find them parking their caravans around the nukes for warmth...
 
snap-happy said:
Ridiculous to suggest keeping weapons that could destroy the planet because it keeps some people in jobs!
Click to expand...
That's the whole point, because they can destroy the planet they won't (haven't) been used, nor could they ever be. They have, by and large, prevented major war since 1945, 70 years without mass killing, what else could do that? Come up with a credible answer and I will vote for it, nothing prior to the "bomb" has worked, what makes you think anything else will?
Appeasement didn't, nor will it. It won't stop minor skirmishes ànd I deplore the loss of life minor wars have caused since 45 but I believe we may well have had much bigger loss of life without the nuclear deterrent.
 
Keep the programme. Seems relatively good value for me when you break it down over the years and compared to other budgets.

And happy to have them in my backyard.
 
DorsetDude said:
:sulk:
Click to expand...

wish I knew what all those amocons or whatever they are called mean ..............that purple ball with eyes bouncing around ... is that supposed to be the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?
 
BillN_33 said:
wish I knew what all those amocons or whatever they are called mean ..............that purple ball with eyes bouncing around ... is that supposed to be the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?
Click to expand...
No, thats me all sad at being called a complete idiot. ;)
 
DorsetDude said:
No, thats me all sad at being called a complete idiot. ;)
Click to expand...

I just cannot bring myself to mention his name

he seems to get worse everyday .... but he has always been like that, and some of his appointments seem as bad as he is

I bet he cuts his own hair! ... or did before he was "anointed"



  1. Anointing is the ritual act of pouring aromatic oil over a person's head or entire body. By extension, the term is also applied to related acts of sprinkling, dousing, or smearing a person or object with any perfumed oil, milk, butter, or other fat.
 
Last edited:
crofter said:
You can see why the ladies like him though,or is it a vegetable,in fact which one is the vegetable ?
Click to expand...

I just feel sorry for the Labour Party, their MP's and the country generally .......... but he seems to be bringing all the idiot Labour MP's to public notice

I'm sure that he is a "nice" guy .......... but is that's what's needed?

so unfortunately we need to keep defence spending at a high level and that includes Trident
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top