Trident - cost
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/120...
So confirmed its decision has been delayed a further 5 years beyond this govt.
Secondly it states the trident cost has raised from £28billion to low £30billion. So how come anti trident speak out of £35billion of cost and they could spend that on weak fare etc instead. They have their sums out by a factor of >4x so why is this?
If. It is "only" £30billion for 50 years use that's very good value.
So confirmed its decision has been delayed a further 5 years beyond this govt.
Secondly it states the trident cost has raised from £28billion to low £30billion. So how come anti trident speak out of £35billion of cost and they could spend that on weak fare etc instead. They have their sums out by a factor of >4x so why is this?
If. It is "only" £30billion for 50 years use that's very good value.
Troubleatmill said:
Anti trident have been banging on about 100 billion....
So the first link below is the latest real figure used today by the govt to debate the defence policy. The second is a scaremongering article which anti trident hang onto - it costs £167billion.
Smoke and mirrors shame on those anti trident replacement you spread the lies like those promise pies the SNP spout
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/23/tri...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost...
majordad said:
Would any Prime Minister actually give the order to launch Trident ? I don't think so . So wasted money ?
The general scenario is that the Prime Minister, and pretty much everyone you know and love, along with the rest of the country, would already be either vapourised or scrabbling about in the ruins wishing they had been vapourised, at which point the Royal Navy will return the compliment to whoever decided to strike first, the objective being to make a potential adversary understand a first strike is effectively suicide.Welshbeef said:
So the first link below is the latest real figure used today by the govt to debate the defence policy.
The second is a scaremongering article which anti trident hang onto - it costs £167billion.
Smoke and mirrors shame on those anti trident replacement you spread the lies like those promise pies the SNP spout
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/23/tri...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost...
I thought you were an accountant?The second is a scaremongering article which anti trident hang onto - it costs £167billion.
Smoke and mirrors shame on those anti trident replacement you spread the lies like those promise pies the SNP spout
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/23/tri...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost...
£30bn (they're setting aside £10bn as a contingency fund so it will probably be more than that) is just the build cost of the subs. Maintenance costs, upgrade costs over the life of the subs (nuclear reactors don't last forever, kit will require upgrading to avoid obsolescence) cost of the missiles and their maintenance (all currently done by the Yanks under a lease arrangement), cost of infrastructure to maintain the subs (dry dock maintenance/upgrades, nuclear fuel handling facilities) are all excluded from that calculation. So, £167bn over 40-50 years (by which stage ICBMs may be completely obsolete) may not be too far out. If the Jocks leave the UK, you can add to that several billion for building a new Trident base elsewhere in RUK.
Whether you agree with Trident or not (and I think it is militarily useless for the UK) that is still a big chunk that cannot be spent on conventional forces/tactical nuclear forces/countering more realistic threats.
Smoke and mirrors are indeed being deployed here, but not by who you think.
Here you go - a bit of a reality check on what the Govt's much trumpeted defence review will actually give us
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34901846
The RAF had 33 fighter squadron in 1990, now it has just 7. To put that into further context, only 8 jets capable of bombing missions can currently be deployed against ISIL, with a another 41 deployed elsewhere. So, fewer than 50 fighter bombers currently available (Typhoon is not equipped for ground attack) assuming we are happy to strip planes away from deployment/training in the UK and elsewhere.
That's the problem with chucking so much money at Trident - it gets to the point where we cannot fight off realistic threats with conventional forces and would have to consider first use of ICBMs or face defeat. I don't think any British PM would choose Armageddon over temporary defeat. That's why Trident is a waste of money without strong conventional forces.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34901846
The RAF had 33 fighter squadron in 1990, now it has just 7. To put that into further context, only 8 jets capable of bombing missions can currently be deployed against ISIL, with a another 41 deployed elsewhere. So, fewer than 50 fighter bombers currently available (Typhoon is not equipped for ground attack) assuming we are happy to strip planes away from deployment/training in the UK and elsewhere.
That's the problem with chucking so much money at Trident - it gets to the point where we cannot fight off realistic threats with conventional forces and would have to consider first use of ICBMs or face defeat. I don't think any British PM would choose Armageddon over temporary defeat. That's why Trident is a waste of money without strong conventional forces.
Bluebarge said:
Typhoon is not equipped for ground attack
To clarify with Typhoon the issue is it being *qualified* for ground attack, rather than equipped; it has always been an 'FGR'. Plain gravity bombs and things like Paveway IV work perfectly happily & have for quite a while, the issue is the test & certification process to prove this. If circumstances required it things would move more quickly & it would be available to use. What if ISIS did create a state, given its there long term goal. Lets say it covers IRAQ and Syria. With capital in Raqqa. SO now we can identify the enemy. No need for boots on the ground. 1 big red button (yeah its not like that really). An its all dealt with.
So in the end Trident is effective, point is its an in the end sort of weapon.
So in the end Trident is effective, point is its an in the end sort of weapon.
Gecko1978 said:
What if ISIS did create a state, given its there long term goal. Lets say it covers IRAQ and Syria. With capital in Raqqa. SO now we can identify the enemy. No need for boots on the ground. 1 big red button (yeah its not like that really). An its all dealt with.
So in the end Trident is effective, point is its an in the end sort of weapon.
Do you have a swivel chair and a cat? So in the end Trident is effective, point is its an in the end sort of weapon.
Strocky said:
Gecko1978 said:
What if ISIS did create a state, given its there long term goal. Lets say it covers IRAQ and Syria. With capital in Raqqa. SO now we can identify the enemy. No need for boots on the ground. 1 big red button (yeah its not like that really). An its all dealt with.
So in the end Trident is effective, point is its an in the end sort of weapon.
Do you have a swivel chair and a cat? So in the end Trident is effective, point is its an in the end sort of weapon.
Gecko1978 said:
hahaha. My point was people have said its no use agaist ISIS I have just shown an example where it works fine agaist them. Far fetched but only because there will never be an ISIS super state etc. Rest of time trident stops us being nuked as well...proof of that well I am still alive as are all of you.
that's a stupid argument, it's not designed for that kind of problem.as for the 'will we use it' argument, I would suggest we have been using it for the last 30+ years and it's been 100% effective, its a deterrent, nothing more or less than that.
Scuffers said:
Gecko1978 said:
hahaha. My point was people have said its no use agaist ISIS I have just shown an example where it works fine agaist them. Far fetched but only because there will never be an ISIS super state etc. Rest of time trident stops us being nuked as well...proof of that well I am still alive as are all of you.
that's a stupid argument, it's not designed for that kind of problem.as for the 'will we use it' argument, I would suggest we have been using it for the last 30+ years and it's been 100% effective, its a deterrent, nothing more or less than that.
Its good value it keeps us safe but there are other threats we need to find resources for too, Just because they are ore immediate does not mean we should scrap trident.
Gecko1978 said:
I believe I said the argument was far fetched. The idea of first strike use agaist ISIS is as likely as me winning the EURO millions many times in a row. But as a final detterant it does work really well. No one wants to be wiped out thus we do not attack Russia etc and they will not do the same. Excluding the fact we have no reason too either.
Its good value it keeps us safe but there are other threats we need to find resources for too, Just because they are ore immediate does not mean we should scrap trident.
agreed...Its good value it keeps us safe but there are other threats we need to find resources for too, Just because they are ore immediate does not mean we should scrap trident.
ISIS is another matter all together, it's not a country you can go and attack per say.
I am really against going and bombing in Syria as realistically, it's going to achieve nothing but a recruitment aid for the nut-jobs.
if we want to stop them, it's pretty simple, just cut them off from the outside world, no money, no weapons, close the borders, cut off the internet and communications, etc etc.
see just how long they can keep it up for without external support.
majordad said:
Would any Prime Minister actually give the order to launch Trident ? I don't think so . So wasted money ?
Never a bad time to wheel out a Yes, Prime Minister/Minister clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff