Trident to be funded by MOD - Sign it's not wanted?
Discussion
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?
As it will be sold on to others as the jewel in our defence crown.Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?
Bearing in mind we are one of the world leaders in defence technologies.
So will bring several billions in return. A bit like foreign aid, but lets all be alarmist and knee jerk.
Lib Dems used it to appeal to the eco masses, they very quietly said at the end of there spiel that they would look at alternatives. Not one party wanted to remove us of a nuclear deterrence. They wanted to do it on the cheap.
I would have assumed that an alternative and starting from scratch would mean that we would be way behind as well as costing a lot more.
Minor details though.
elster 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?
As it will be sold on to others as the jewel in our defence crown.Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?
Bearing in mind we are one of the world leaders in defence technologies.
So will bring several billions in return. A bit like foreign aid, but lets all be alarmist and knee jerk.
Lib Dems used it to appeal to the eco masses, they very quietly said at the end of there spiel that they would look at alternatives. Not one party wanted to remove us of a nuclear deterrence. They wanted to do it on the cheap.
I would have assumed that an alternative and starting from scratch would mean that we would be way behind as well as costing a lot more.
Minor details though.
I can see both sides of the pro / anti argument, but if it comes down to conventional vs nuke capability, then I stand with the anti lobby.
Leithen said:
Regardless of the arguments for or against, one simple truth remains.
We can't afford it.
There's plenty of things that we can't afford but we'll still keep. A BILLION pounds every three days for the NHS anyone? Or £40B a year in interest payments on the UK's debt and £10B a year on Foreign Aid to name but a few.We can't afford it.
JagLover said:
As the world becomes more unstable, and nuclear technology spreads to more unstable states an independent nuclear deterrant becomes ever more vital.
We will probably soon be in a world where Iran joins Pakistan and NK in the Nuclear club.
I say again.We will probably soon be in a world where Iran joins Pakistan and NK in the Nuclear club.
Any nation who attacked us with nukes as a first strike would be insane. It would be vapourised in return.
If it's insane, a few subs will not be a deterrent.
Germany ha no need for nukes.
It's will waving
V88Dicky said:
Leithen said:
Regardless of the arguments for or against, one simple truth remains.
We can't afford it.
There's plenty of things that we can't afford but we'll still keep. A BILLION pounds every three days for the NHS anyone? Or £40B a year in interest payments on the UK's debt and £10B a year on Foreign Aid to name but a few.We can't afford it.
Leithen said:
Regardless of the arguments for or against, one simple truth remains.
We can't afford it.
Piffle.We can't afford it.
Assuming Trident is 1/20th of the total UK Defence spend, look here and tell me how much more we spend on the Scottish Office.
We can't afford everything we have today, but Trident is more important than a lot of the stuff we buy.
For many years there were no votes in Defence Spending - so proper funding of the Services have been neglected for decades.
Politicians love cutting defence spending because they only lose servicemen compared to votes - and voters are more important than servicemens' lives.
Politicians love cutting defence spending because they only lose servicemen compared to votes - and voters are more important than servicemens' lives.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 30th July 10:51
randlemarcus said:
Leithen said:
Regardless of the arguments for or against, one simple truth remains.
We can't afford it.
Piffle.We can't afford it.
Assuming Trident is 1/20th of the total UK Defence spend, look here and tell me how much more we spend on the Scottish Office.
We can't afford everything we have today, but Trident is more important than a lot of the stuff we buy.
I think some posters are ignoring the fact that this is a long term deterrent. It will take years to build and then they will be in service for decades. Are they so convinced they know the threats this country will face in 2050 and which allies can be relied upon to protect us.
An oft repeated argument is that we can join our European allies in sheltering beneath the American security umbrella. But what if America if will not or cannot (due to budgetary constraints) provide the security Europe is unwilling to pay for itself.
It is Europe that will be on the front line of any future conflict with radical Islam. Their cities increasingly within missile range and it might well be that Europe will have to fend for itself.
An oft repeated argument is that we can join our European allies in sheltering beneath the American security umbrella. But what if America if will not or cannot (due to budgetary constraints) provide the security Europe is unwilling to pay for itself.
It is Europe that will be on the front line of any future conflict with radical Islam. Their cities increasingly within missile range and it might well be that Europe will have to fend for itself.
In 1975 it was decided that the Royal Navy would never need to supply its own Airborne Early Warning any more as it would only ever fight under the auspices of NATO and AEW assets would be provided by the RAF and other NATO air forces from land bases or the US Navy from their large carriers.
This was the ultimate result of that decision
This was the ultimate result of that decision
How do rogue states that might view Trident as a deterrant actually know that we have an opertaional Trident fleet? What's to stop us agreeing to build a new Trident weapons system, go through all the motions, declare it operational but not actually build a new one at all? It's not as if the subs are open to public inspection or their current positions around the globe made available to other countries. Is there not scope for a grand bluff?
Also, assuming that the current Trident system does indeed work and that there is no possibilty of intercepting an ICBM once launched, why is the cost of replacing them so large? Surely there is no great need for expensive R&D and new technologies to be devloped? We just build newer versions based on the previous, succesful designs?
Also, assuming that the current Trident system does indeed work and that there is no possibilty of intercepting an ICBM once launched, why is the cost of replacing them so large? Surely there is no great need for expensive R&D and new technologies to be devloped? We just build newer versions based on the previous, succesful designs?
JagLover said:
I think some posters are ignoring the fact that this is a long term deterrent. It will take years to build and then they will be in service for decades. Are they so convinced they know the threats this country will face in 2050 and which allies can be relied upon to protect us.
An oft repeated argument is that we can join our European allies in sheltering beneath the American security umbrella. But what if America if will not or cannot (due to budgetary constraints) provide the security Europe is unwilling to pay for itself.
It is Europe that will be on the front line of any future conflict with radical Islam. Their cities increasingly within missile range and it might well be that Europe will have to fend for itself.
That's easy - we just tell US we've turned Muslim and wait for the danger close response. An oft repeated argument is that we can join our European allies in sheltering beneath the American security umbrella. But what if America if will not or cannot (due to budgetary constraints) provide the security Europe is unwilling to pay for itself.
It is Europe that will be on the front line of any future conflict with radical Islam. Their cities increasingly within missile range and it might well be that Europe will have to fend for itself.
TEKNOPUG said:
How do rogue states that might view Trident as a deterrant actually know that we have an opertaional Trident fleet? What's to stop us agreeing to build a new Trident weapons system, go through all the motions, declare it operational but not actually build a new one at all? It's not as if the subs are open to public inspection or their current positions around the globe made available to other countries. Is there not scope for a grand bluff?
Also, assuming that the current Trident system does indeed work and that there is no possibilty of intercepting an ICBM once launched, why is the cost of replacing them so large? Surely there is no great need for expensive R&D and new technologies to be devloped? We just build newer versions based on the previous, succesful designs?
The reality would leak out pretty quickly. If the MOD didmn't actually "spend" the money, then that fact would be obvious.Also, assuming that the current Trident system does indeed work and that there is no possibilty of intercepting an ICBM once launched, why is the cost of replacing them so large? Surely there is no great need for expensive R&D and new technologies to be devloped? We just build newer versions based on the previous, succesful designs?
rhinochopig said:
Sorry but I have to disagree. I very much doubt that Trident & V Class act as a halo product for UK defence exports. Trident is a us design, the NSRP is a US design in origin, which we are locked into a secrecy agreement over. That leaves the hull, hotel, weapon, and sensor systems, which we would have anyway without trident.
I can see both sides of the pro / anti argument, but if it comes down to conventional vs nuke capability, then I stand with the anti lobby.
You do realise there is no option for disarmament?I can see both sides of the pro / anti argument, but if it comes down to conventional vs nuke capability, then I stand with the anti lobby.
There is trident, or an alternative. No major political party has said they wouldn't have a nuclear project.
The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
The only options on the table are this trident replacement, which is already past the research stage. Or go on and create a whole new only British system.
Yes the project has more than paid for itself.
k missiles.Eric Mc said:
TEKNOPUG said:
How do rogue states that might view Trident as a deterrant actually know that we have an opertaional Trident fleet? What's to stop us agreeing to build a new Trident weapons system, go through all the motions, declare it operational but not actually build a new one at all? It's not as if the subs are open to public inspection or their current positions around the globe made available to other countries. Is there not scope for a grand bluff?
Also, assuming that the current Trident system does indeed work and that there is no possibilty of intercepting an ICBM once launched, why is the cost of replacing them so large? Surely there is no great need for expensive R&D and new technologies to be devloped? We just build newer versions based on the previous, succesful designs?
The reality would leak out pretty quickly. If the MOD didmn't actually "spend" the money, then that fact would be obvious.Also, assuming that the current Trident system does indeed work and that there is no possibilty of intercepting an ICBM once launched, why is the cost of replacing them so large? Surely there is no great need for expensive R&D and new technologies to be devloped? We just build newer versions based on the previous, succesful designs?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff