35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[Obelix 11]

The Falklands was the example you used - there are plenty of resources out there that will keep the argies at bay. And an aircraft carrier is on its way - but have we needed one recently?

 

A nuclear deterent would be handy. But surely there's a cheaper way of delivering them than expensive submarines?

 

The thing about a sub launch platform is that it is very difficult to find. A first strike is very unlikely if the opponent has a credible counterforce strike capability, and with one or two SSBN's at sea, any aggressor is going to find that their cities are smoking craters a couple of hours after launching a first strike.

 

Add to that the fact that Trident isn't a credible first strike platform (insufficient missiles, and with loss of GPS insufficiently accurate to attack silos) it makes it a purely defensive weapons system.

 

If you want it cheaper, you put it on land. But that's not that cheap - although it may same some money - and it suffers from many disadvantages.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Anyone else think we should be spending on more productive things..greenpeace put the cost of trident around the 35bn mark. What a waste..cant we just buy afew submarines and and scrap this trident business. Id sooner have more money for schools and health than this. Russia etc would be daft to launch a nuclear attack on us. It will never happen..

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 14:08 ----------

 

Apparently costs about 3bn per year to run the trident programme. Tax payers money

 

I'm all for Trident. It may cost a fair few quid, but look at the billions Lab/Con have blown over the years on failed projects.

[I1L2T3 10]

Let's get rid.

 

Given the position in the world with so many active nuclear states that can't happen overnight though - politically we're not ready.

 

Maybe time to look at the LibDem's previous proposals for a cheaper non-trident alternative and the eventual removal of these appalling weapons from our islands. Can't happen soon enough for me.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Let's get rid.

 

Given the position in the world with so many active nuclear states that can't happen overnight though - politically we're not ready.

 

Maybe time to look at the LibDem's previous proposals for a cheaper non-trident alternative and the eventual removal of these appalling weapons from our islands. Can't happen soon enough for me.

 

If you study the cruise missile option, it's limited range and inflexibility means it's not really a strategic weapon, it's more of a tactical weapon so it's worth as a deterrent is very limited.

 

When you look at the bomber option, you're looking at something that is potentially far more expensive than Trident, even if you're looking at it launching cruise missiles. There's a reason that the American's haven't ever really replaced the B-52 after these years.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Let's get rid.

 

Given the position in the world with so many active nuclear states that can't happen overnight though - politically we're not ready.

 

Maybe time to look at the LibDem's previous proposals for a cheaper non-trident alternative and the eventual removal of these appalling weapons from our islands. Can't happen soon enough for me.

 

What proposals would they be? Waving celery sticks at aggressors?

[alchemist 37]

In a perfect world we wouldn't need it.

 

Look what happened to Ukraine after they disposed of all their nuclear weapons.

 

What should we use against a country like Russia in the event of a war, harsh words?

 

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that IF Russia suddenly decided to attack the UK we would actually use nukes against them?

[loraward 10]

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that IF Russia suddenly decided to attack the UK we would actually use nukes against them?

 

What would you do if you was in charge of a sub carrying nukes and you learned that your family, friends and country had been destroyed by Russia?

 

Would you surrender or fire the nukes?

[I1L2T3 10]

What proposals would they be? Waving celery sticks at aggressors?

 

Just as effective.

 

When we get to the point where we have to overtly threaten Russia with nukes (who else are we trying to deter) then our world is days or weeks away from not being worth living in. At least you could eat the celery, if you like it.

[alchemist 37]

I'm not talking about the Falklands...that was merely an example.....I don't want us to have to 'borrow' stuff...Do you?

 

Well actually the Falklands ARE a perfect example. The main argument for having nukes is that it prevents us being attacked. Yet despite us having nukes the argies still attacked us and we didnt use nukes against them. So what IS the point of them, REALLY??

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that IF Russia suddenly decided to attack the UK we would actually use nukes against them?

 

If they nuke us, then our Nige would certainly order retaliation.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 20:51 ----------

 

Well actually the Falklands ARE a perfect example. The main argument for having nukes is that it prevents us being attacked. Yet despite us having nukes the argies still attacked us and we didnt use nukes against them. So what IS the point of them, REALLY??

 

Ridiculous analogy.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Well actually the Falklands ARE a perfect example. The main argument for having nukes is that it prevents us being attacked. Yet despite us having nukes the argies still attacked us and we didnt use nukes against them. So what IS the point of them, REALLY??

 

Actually the Falklands is an interesting example. Argentina attacked the Falklands because they didn't believe that we'd have the will power to fight for them, they believed that 1981 the defence cuts were a signal of this.

[alchemist 37]

 

Ridiculous analogy.

 

Is it? Why?

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 21:21 ----------

 

Actually the Falklands is an interesting example. Argentina attacked the Falklands because they didn't believe that we'd have the will power to fight for them, they believed that 1981 the defence cuts were a signal of this.

 

And we showed them that when push came to shove our "deterrent" was no deterrent. So again the question has to be asked, what use is it?