Trident to be funded by MOD - Sign it's not wanted?
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10812825
George Osbourne has stated that unlike previous Trident spends, the Treasury will not be funding it, the MoD has to....
Bearing in mind that it's £20B cost is half the total MoD budget, and that the MoD still have to find 20% cost reductions, is this the clearest sign yet that the coalition simply aren't interested in maintaining our nuclear defence?
IMHO, this is not what I voted for, and, in my mind, is a fairly clear example to show that the Tories are pandering far too much to the Lib Dems in order to maintain a government.
George Osbourne has stated that unlike previous Trident spends, the Treasury will not be funding it, the MoD has to....
Bearing in mind that it's £20B cost is half the total MoD budget, and that the MoD still have to find 20% cost reductions, is this the clearest sign yet that the coalition simply aren't interested in maintaining our nuclear defence?
IMHO, this is not what I voted for, and, in my mind, is a fairly clear example to show that the Tories are pandering far too much to the Lib Dems in order to maintain a government.
I presume the £20 billion to be spent on Trident would be spread over at least ten years. That is £2 billion PER YEAR. If the annual defence budget is £40 billion, then Trident is 1/20 of the Annual Defence Budget - not 1/2.
My above sums may not be altogether correct but I do find newspaper and news articles which quote numbers without clarifying time periods dangerously misleading.
My above sums may not be altogether correct but I do find newspaper and news articles which quote numbers without clarifying time periods dangerously misleading.
Blib said:
What on Earth is the point of Trident in this day and age?
Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?
Because a nice ICBM, once launched, cannot be stopped (except maybe by the Americans). Which is why we also need nuke subs to launch them.Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?
Cruises are easy to shoot down, ships follow the "if you can see it, you can kill it" logic.
randlemarcus said:
Blib said:
What on Earth is the point of Trident in this day and age?
Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?
Because a nice ICBM, once launched, cannot be stopped (except maybe by the Americans). Which is why we also need nuke subs to launch them.Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?
Cruises are easy to shoot down, ships follow the "if you can see it, you can kill it" logic.
Do you understand the meaning of deterrence?
There are more nuclear powers now in the world than there were when Britain first became a nuclear power. Some of the newer nuclear powers are less than stable or friendly to the UK.
Do you really thjink that giving up the one thing that MIGHT put off one of these nuclear powers attacking the UK is such a good idea.
There are more nuclear powers now in the world than there were when Britain first became a nuclear power. Some of the newer nuclear powers are less than stable or friendly to the UK.
Do you really thjink that giving up the one thing that MIGHT put off one of these nuclear powers attacking the UK is such a good idea.
There's a deeper issue running here. It's very, very likely that either the Harrier or the Tornado will be axed (reports suggest the Tornado). That will leave the RAF as a mere shadow of it's former self. The Coalition seem to have less regard for the armed forces than Brown did (which says a lot).
I voted for Cameron. But his recent diplomatic gaffs (it's called 'diplomacy' for a reason Dave!) are showing him as something as an amateur). Everybody acknowledges the need to reduce the deficit, but they seem to be relishing slashing everything, to the point where nothing is viable.
I voted for Cameron. But his recent diplomatic gaffs (it's called 'diplomacy' for a reason Dave!) are showing him as something as an amateur). Everybody acknowledges the need to reduce the deficit, but they seem to be relishing slashing everything, to the point where nothing is viable.
Eric Mc said:
Do you understand the meaning of deterrence?
There are more nuclear powers now in the world than there were when Britain first became a nuclear power. Some of the newer nuclear powers are less than stable or friendly to the UK.
Do you really thjink that giving up the one thing that MIGHT put off one of these nuclear powers attacking the UK is such a good idea.
I understand deterence fully Eric. Why, I'm almost as old as you. There are more nuclear powers now in the world than there were when Britain first became a nuclear power. Some of the newer nuclear powers are less than stable or friendly to the UK.
Do you really thjink that giving up the one thing that MIGHT put off one of these nuclear powers attacking the UK is such a good idea.
Trident is an anachronism. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to have it, short of placating the Senior Service. Being under the nuclear umbrella of the USA, we're not going to be nuked by any nation, any time soon.
A great big boat under the Arctic is not going to stop a terrorist with a suitcase nuke now is it?
I ask you once more. Tell me a situation where we would be allowed to nuke a country and the US would have no interest in doing the very same thing?
I don't know whether the UK would need to get approval the US before using its deterrence.
However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
Eric Mc said:
I don't know whether the UK would need to get approval the US before using its deterrence.
However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
As a former maintainer of said system, can I just make it perfectly clear that the UK needs no other permission than that of the Prime Minister to 'Set Condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch'. A pipe that you hope you never hear when you are on deterrent patrol.However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
Edited by V88Dicky on Friday 30th July 09:50
Elroy Blue said:
There's a deeper issue running here. It's very, very likely that either the Harrier or the Tornado will be axed (reports suggest the Tornado). That will leave the RAF as a mere shadow of it's former self. The Coalition seem to have less regard for the armed forces than Brown did (which says a lot).
I voted for Cameron. But his recent diplomatic gaffs (it's called 'diplomacy' for a reason Dave!) are showing him as something as an amateur). Everybody acknowledges the need to reduce the deficit, but they seem to be relishing slashing everything, to the point where nothing is viable.
In your opinion, of course. You are David Milliband AICMFP.I voted for Cameron. But his recent diplomatic gaffs (it's called 'diplomacy' for a reason Dave!) are showing him as something as an amateur). Everybody acknowledges the need to reduce the deficit, but they seem to be relishing slashing everything, to the point where nothing is viable.
'Diplomacy' hasn't got us anywhere close to solving the problems in the Middle East. Nice to see someone in power telling it like it is, in my opinion.
Eric Mc said:
I don't know whether the UK would need to get approval the US before using its deterrence.
However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
Well not that independent given that a) Trident is a US delivery system, and b) AWE is largely owned by US companies.However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
V88Dicky said:
Eric Mc said:
I don't know whether the UK would need to get approval the US before using its deterrence.
However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
#However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
As a former maintainer of said system, can I just make it perfectly clear that the UK needs no other permission than that of the Prime Minister to 'Set Condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch'. A pipe that you hope you never hear when you are on deterrent patrol.
But liken the situation to a joint bank account in a marriage if you will;
You don't NEED your OH's permission to spend the money in the account....but you wouldn't dare do it without his/her approval for fear of the backlash
Same applies with the deployment of Nukes IMO. Even though you don't strictly need anyone elses permission....you wouldn't take a decision to launch without the approval of you allies, or other nations in the international community.
ETA: I think if we want to remain a serious power in the eyes of the international community, we need to maintain some form of Nuke ability. But the cost of the current Trident system, when taken in the context of our current economic condition, and when identifying the change in threat from a static country to the mobile terrorist organisation, makes it's look like an unecessary expense. IMO
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Friday 30th July 09:59
Riff Raff said:
In your opinion, of course. You are David Milliband AICMFP.
'Diplomacy' hasn't got us anywhere close to solving the problems in the Middle East. Nice to see someone in power telling it like it is, in my opinion.
Yes. In my opinion. You don't gain influence by insulting people. If you don't think this sort of language is a problem, you've certainly don't understand the mentality of Asian/Arab people. (And neither does Cameron by the look of it)'Diplomacy' hasn't got us anywhere close to solving the problems in the Middle East. Nice to see someone in power telling it like it is, in my opinion.
And back to topic....
Edited by Elroy Blue on Friday 30th July 09:55
Spiritual_Beggar said:
V88Dicky said:
Eric Mc said:
I don't know whether the UK would need to get approval the US before using its deterrence.
However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
#However, neither do you and, even more imporatntly, neither do any of those countries who might conceivably use their nuclear weapons against us.
It is described as an Indpendent Nuclear Deterrence. I always understood the word "independent" to mean "not requiring the authority of others".
As a former maintainer of said system, can I just make it perfectly clear that the UK needs no other permission than that of the Prime Minister to 'Set Condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch'. A pipe that you hope you never hear when you are on deterrent patrol.
But liken the situation to a joint bank account in a marriage if you will;
You don't NEED your OH's permission to spend the money in the account....but you wouldn't dare do it without his/her approval for fear of the backlash
Same applies with the deployment of Nukes IMO. Even though you don't strictly need anyone elses permission....you wouldn't take a decision to launch without the approval of you allies, or other nations in the international community.
Any nation's goverment that was insane enough to attack the UK with nuclear weapons as an arm of foriegn policy will not be deterred by a couple of subs floating somewhere off of their coast.
They would be deep in the realms of insanity or religious end game planning.
Frankly, this is just a pointless waste of money. We belong to NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all. Last time I looked, the US were signatories of the North Atlantic Traty.
As were Germany, Itally, Poland etc. They don't feel the need for white elephants costing the nation billions.
They'd rather spend their cash on issues more suited to the 21st century.
That goes for Typhoon too.
They would be deep in the realms of insanity or religious end game planning.
Frankly, this is just a pointless waste of money. We belong to NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all. Last time I looked, the US were signatories of the North Atlantic Traty.
As were Germany, Itally, Poland etc. They don't feel the need for white elephants costing the nation billions.
They'd rather spend their cash on issues more suited to the 21st century.
That goes for Typhoon too.
Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!
tegwin said:
Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!
The US vetos everything that we would.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff