Trident - cost

Author
Discussion

Welshbeef

Original Poster:

49,633 posts

197 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
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.

V88Dicky

7,302 posts

182 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Indeed.

To put it into context, that's about three months NHS budget!

Troubleatmill

10,210 posts

158 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Anti trident have been banging on about 100 billion....

greygoose

8,225 posts

194 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Perhaps they could flog the old ones off to Iran or North Korea like all the other assets we have sold off?

Welshbeef

Original Poster:

49,633 posts

197 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
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...

98elise

26,380 posts

160 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
V88Dicky said:
Indeed.

To put it into context, that's about three months NHS budget!
Or about 2 months borrowing (above and beyond spending all the tax money).

Thats not very much in the big scheme of things

majordad

3,600 posts

196 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Would any Prime Minister actually give the order to launch Trident ? I don't think so . So wasted money ?

eharding

13,602 posts

283 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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.





Bluebarge

4,519 posts

177 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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?

£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.

Bluebarge

4,519 posts

177 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

Jonesy23

4,650 posts

135 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Amongst other benefits, our independent nuculeeuar deterrent wins the UK a seat at the top table. The annual cost is minimal in the general scheme of things.

Gecko1978

9,603 posts

156 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

Strocky

2,630 posts

112 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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?

Gecko1978

9,603 posts

156 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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?
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.

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Trident is a bargain for national safety. But it does seem like a waste of money when we are letting the enemy into the country anyway.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

Gecko1978

9,603 posts

156 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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.
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.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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...

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.




Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
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. biggrin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE