Upgrading of Trident at £20 billion, good value for money?

The government has found £20billion to upgrade our nuclear capacity and given the main contract to Rolls Royce creating 100's of new jobs in an area of depredation, considering that we give £billions to the EU (would they defend us), £billions to overseas aid and currently spend £150 billion pa on the NHS, is this good value for money?

If Rolls Royce can build and supply nuclear power for submarines, surely they also they have the capacity to build our much needed power stations rather than give contracts to other nations?

A priority? Are we under threat of invasion/attack nuclear or otherwise? Is our posession of nuclear weapons really a deterrent to invasion/attack? Would the money be better invested in other areas, eg education, social housing, etc? What does it say about our governer's vision of our future? Does it mean we'll continue engaging in mid-east conflicts? Is Iran next in our sights? Is this more to do with business and people making money than what is in the best interests UK citizens? Should public money be spent to benefit the bank balances of a few individuals? etc...etc...etc

Fair point sickchip, but considering the other area's we throw money away to (mustn't forget £10billion for the Olympics) surely a governments first expenditure is the defence of it's country. Could we rely on Europe to come to our aid if (in the future) some renegade country decides to attack. The unknowns are numerous and shouldn't we carry our own defence capabilities for the foreseeable future rather than rely on others?

Just part of the Tory Masterplan to bankrupt the Nation before they inevitably get thrown out at the next Election.

Surely upgrading our defence capability is correct, the cost is minimal when you look at the other funds wasted for political reasons. Defence is important regardless of the politics and at least this is being built in our Country.

Yes they are up grading our nuclear subs but how can they be called 'defense' weapons, surely if Britain was invaded we would need troops and Hammond is looking to reduce our troops by 18,000 in the next year......

Perhaps this government has drawn up plans to use nuclear weapons on British soil?????

sickchip wrote:A priority? Are we under threat of invasion/attack nuclear or otherwise? Is our posession of nuclear weapons really a deterrent to invasion/attack? Would the money be better invested in other areas, eg education, social housing, etc? What does it say about our governer's vision of our future? Does it mean we'll continue engaging in mid-east conflicts? Is Iran next in our sights? Is this more to do with business and people making money than what is in the best interests UK citizens? Should public money be spent to benefit the bank balances of a few individuals? etc...etc...etc

I am with you Sickchip. What a wast of money all of this is in my view.

In reality, the UK would need to consult the USA before receiving permission to launch a nuclear missile from Trident.

Whatever we paid for it.

oftenwrong wrote:
In reality, the UK would need to consult the USA before receiving permission to launch a nuclear missile from Trident.

 

In reality, the UK would need to consult the UK before receiving permission to launch a Trident nuclear missile.

RockOnBrother wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:
In reality, the UK would need to consult the USA before receiving permission to launch a nuclear missile from Trident.

In reality, the UK would need to consult the UK before receiving permission to launch a Trident nuclear missile.

Although the UK designed, manufactured and owns the warheads, there is evidence that the warhead design is similar to, or even based on, the US W76 warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles, with design data being supplied by the United States through the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement. The United Kingdom owns 58 missiles which are shared in a joint pool with the United States government.

On 8 July 1996 the International Court of Justice, the highest court of the United Nations, handed down an advisory opinion that stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would in most cases violate various articles of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom

[quote="oftenwrong"]
On 8 July 1996 the International Court of Justice, the highest court of the United Nations, handed down an advisory opinion that stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would in most cases violate various articles of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United Nations posted a peace-keeping mission to Syria. The United Nations posted a peace-keeping mission to Rwanda. The United Nations posted a peace-keeping mission to the Congo.

Yep. The United Nations most assuredly knows how to keep the peace. Peace-keeping experts, they are.

oftenwrong wrote:
Although the UK designed, manufactured and owns the warheads, there is evidence that the warhead design is similar to, or even based on, the US W76 warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles, with design data being supplied by the United States through the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement.  The United Kingdom owns 58 missiles which are shared in a joint pool with the United States government.

 

The United Kingdom is sovereign, a fact recognized and supported by the United States, its citizens individually and collectively, and its military. Our two countries, as sovereign entities, have provided military hardware and procedures to each other throughout my cognizant lifetime. Trident is but one such example.

Off the top of my head, no research: Canberra, UK to US; Harrier, UK to US; Polaris (1st generation predecessor to Trident, during JFK’s administration), US to UK; Phantom II, US to UK; ADCAP, US to UK; armored deck aircraft carriers, UK to US; aircraft carrier steam catapult (newest generation, electromagnetic), UK to US; aircraft carrier angled deck, UK to US; aircraft carrier landing system, UK to US (the “big four” UK to US, without which modern CVN operations would be impossible); effective special ops tactics, UK to US (SAS pioneered tactics used by SEAL Team 6).

And going back beyond my lifetime, the war winner of WWII, the aircraft which reputedly prompted Goering to declare that the war was over, the Anglo-American P-51 Mustang, ordered by the RAF from North American Aviation, Inglewood, California, USA, refitted with Rolls-Royce Merlin power-plants, provided cover for daylight bombing raids over Berlin and Tokyo.

Almost forgot: US SSN commanders train aboard RN SSNs.

To a degree there is a "keeping up with the Jones s" aspect to all this, belonging to the select nuclear club of nations, but shouldent we begin to live in the world of reality and do the sensible thing.

Imagine if the UK and France shared and pooled their nuclear capability, either as an Anglo-French deterant or as an Anglo-French controled European deterant.

This would half the costs, half the annual running costs, freeing up money to either help with both nations deficits or spend on valuable public services, or invest in other areas of military spending.

The idea of NATO with Canada and the United States is fine, but lets be honest about this, north America is north America, Europe is Europe, and though we have many shared values, we are in different parts of the world.
Some of the threats to Europe are not threats to the US or Canada, for example North Korea is a serious threat to the western side of America, but is no threat to Europe.

A European common defence pact / policy makes a lot of sense

Good to see you here witchy and good posting.

There are subtle differences between the way Britain and the US have created their individual Doomsday chain-of-command structures. The American fail-safe procedures require dual simultaneous "permissions" at various levels descending from the President (or Veep etc.) down to an actual pair of responsible Military Officers, before a nuclear weapon can be discharged.

The USA clearly presents a much larger target than the British Isles, so can enjoy a variety of alternative paths of authority. A luxury denied Great Britain, which could concievably be vapourised in a single First Attack.

Accordingly, a Trident nuclear submarine's Officers may in certain circumstances have absolute authority to launch. e.g. if BBC Radio 4 goes completely off air for a specified length of time.

oftenwrong wrote:
There are subtle differences between the way Britain and the US have created their individual Doomsday chain-of-command structures.  The American fail-safe procedures require dual simultaneous "permissions" at various levels descending from the President (or Veep etc.) down to an actual pair of responsible Military Officers, before a nuclear weapon can be discharged.

 

Regarding the underlined text, commencement of the missile launch sequence requires four simultaneous concurrences from four specified naval officers aboard the SSBN as to the authenticity of a fire order, as United States Navy Tridents can be launched only by direct order issued by the Commander-in-Chief of all US military forces, the President of the United States. One non-concurrence precludes commencement of the launch sequence.

Letters of Last Resort

One of the first tasks or jobs of any new Primeminister is to write down in his or her own hand writting what the commanders of the nuclear armed submarines should do in the event that the country is attacked and the government wiped out.

If the monarch is also killed, then the alternatives are to either hand themselves over to the control of of Her Majesties Australian government, the Canadian government or the government of the United States.

On the appointment of a new Primeminister the "Letters of Last Resort" are destroyed unopened and replaced with the new ones.

not a lot of people know that

Mutually assured Destruction

Can anything else more forcefully demonstrate the incredible stupidity of which the Human Race is capable?

oftenwrong wrote:
Mutually assured Destruction

Can anything else more forcefully demonstrate the incredible stupidity of which the Human Race is capable?

 

Yes. Appeasement.

QUOTE: "Yet the British government has not only denied Parliament the opportunity to discuss it, it will not even disclose the content of the agreement."

The British Government doesn't need to.  Until Oliver Cromwell moved the goalposts, the Divine Right of Kings provided our Law.  By agreement of King Charles II, that "Right" was devolved to the Houses of Parliament.  The Prime Minister of the day (and "Privy Councillors") now operate the Royal Prerogative at will.

If we live long enough, there may eventually be a written Constitution that stops a Prime Minister from being able to act in the name of the entire British population.

oftenwrong wrote:Mutually assured Destruction

Can anything else more forcefully demonstrate the incredible stupidity of which the Human Race is capable?

To a certain extent OW I agree, but as long as the NUTTERS in this world have nuclear weapons we need to keep our or we could become pawns or fried prawns

The lesson of History is that there is always an opponent who has a bigger stick.

I think we should keep our nuclear defence because who knows what could turn up in 10, or 30 years time, just take a look at things at the moment Putin ISIS and who bloody know what other nasties will turn up in the future ?? IMHO if we get rid of trident we could be held to ransome by the nasty people that live in this world or what may pop up in the future.

I know and unsterstand the point about the money it costs to keep trident, but I feel a lot safer with the deterent being there just in case we have to use it may we never have too but ...

Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons - USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Presumably the people in all those other European countries which don't have nuclear weapons must feel 'safe' enough without them?

Nuclear weapons were a deterrent in the 'Cold War', which effectively ended more than two decades ago. The greatest threat to our security nowadays comes from maniacs like ISIS training up terrorists and sending them elsewhere to commit atrocities like 9/11 and 7/7. The Russians are hardly likely to bomb London because they own half of it!

Nuclear weapons are an appalling waste of money, and they're generally supported by right-wingers who will spend unlimited amounts of money on them; yet at the same time they're quite happy to treat abysmally the very people they are supposed to be defending. One of the few good things that Enoch Powell ever said was that you'd have to be insane to use nuclear weapons, so what's the point of having them?

On this one, I agree with Nicola!

tlttf wrote:Fair point sickchip, but considering the other area's we throw money away to (mustn't forget £10billion for the Olympics) surely a governments first expenditure is the defence of it's country. Could we rely on Europe to come to our aid if (in the future) some renegade country decides to attack. The unknowns are numerous and shouldn't we carry our own defence capabilities for the foreseeable future rather than rely on others?

Trident is no defence against modern (ie urban guerrila) Warfare in the form of terrorism. Beside that are we really going to nuke Russia? What about neighbouring countries like the Ukraine? What if we nuked ISIS - which is to say nuked Iraq which neighbours Turkey? Trident is no deterrent against people mad enough to launch nukes in the first place.

I suppose that if clowns like Cameron keep interfering in other countries and causing huge refugee crises, it must help them to have a bigger one than North Koreas to wave about as the victims drown, but for the rest of us the point of Trident and so on is not very evident. Couldn't we keep one bomb in the British Museum or something, to show we are a Great Power? I spent so much of my youth marching that my feet are too big!

Maybe a better use of defence spending would be to invest in man power, both in the army and in the diplomatic service?

Or the airforce boatlady, newer planes that can keep up better with the russians that invade our airspace.

“Trident is all nonsense”

In November 2012, former Tory defence secretary Michael Portillo was asked on the BBC’s ‘This Week’ programme whether Trident should be renewed. This was his reply:-

“No, I think it is all nonsense. A nuclear deterrent is completely past its sell-by date. It’s neither independent, because we couldn’t possibly use it without the Americans, nor is it any sort of deterrent, because now we are largely facing enemies like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, who cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. It’s a tremendous waste of money. It’s done entirely for reasons of national prestige, and at the margins it is proliferation.”

Sadly, Labour MP Dan Jarvis doesn’t seem to agree. He says that he would feel “deeply uncomfortable” fighting the 2020 election as a Labour candidate on a manifesto that committed us to getting rid of our nuclear deterrent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/09/dan-jarvis-trident-jeremy-corbyn_n_8943832.html?

Wouldn’t the defence of this country be better served by saving all the money spent on nuclear weapons and instead reversing the cuts made to the police and armed forces, who are likely to be far more useful when there are terrorist outrages?

I really don't like Michael Portillo, but I do think he is dead right about Trident

It seems clear that the current national threat is terrorism in various forms and as Ivan says police and the armed forces are much more likely to be an effective defence against this type of attack.

And, on moral grounds, I just hate the idea of mutually assured destruction - if we are going to be bombed out of existence, I'd like to think someone would still be alive to continue the human race

There'll be palm trees growing around Faslane Loch before a Tory government would give up their master icon of machismo.

Do you think they may be genitally challenged?

You have a good point there boatlady, we can never use Trident because if we did they would in turn nuke the UK but first we will have to get permission the from the USA before we useit and secondly would they give us permission to use it or would be not in there interest to allow us to fire it.

We must focus on the real enemy - Tories putting national austerity ahead of national security

From an article by John Prescott:-

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face, particularly international terrorism." Who said that? Jeremy Corbyn? CND? The Archbishop of Canterbury? No. It was three of the most respected and experienced military experts in the country – former field marshal Lord Bramall and former generals Lord Ramsbotham and Sir Hugh Beach.

The problem is that Trident now is being used as political tactic by the Tories to hit Labour in the same way they used the myth that WE caused a global economic crash, not greedy bankers. Our policy is currently, and has been for decades, to support nuclear submarines as a deterrent. But times have changed. The decision to renew Trident must be based on facts, not rushed through by the Tories in a snap parliamentary vote. Or be influenced by Labour MPs threatening to resign.

Because who exactly is the threat to national security? Is it the respected and trusted army chiefs who say Trident is an expensive waste of money? Or is it a Tory government that over the last six years has slashed the defence budget by almost 20%? These cuts are leading to the loss of 20,000 soldiers and 10,000 fewer servicemen and woman in the Navy and Royal Air Force. The security threat to the UK isn’t from Jeremy Corbyn. It’s from a right-wing government that’s hell-bent on putting national austerity ahead of national security.

For the whole article:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/must-focus-real-enemy-tories-7235172

I have confusing thoughts about Trident.

I understand and appreciate that the country needs to be defended. But the mounting costs of Trident can't be ignored. Who would use nuclear weapons against us? And would we be prepared to risk another world war and be the country to detonate first?

i honestly think that the use of nuclear weapons is outdated. The world has moved on and the days of fearing Russian spies wearing no smiles and a raincoat are over. The next big threat will not be nuclear - it's going to be chemical.

Think about it. An opposing entity - say Isis - if they want to control a country, they wouldn't destroy it. You can't subjugate what isn't there. The way to do it is to target specifically key personnel ie the Prime Minister, the Queen, the head of the Army. The Russians have already done it with their British nuisance, Mr Litvinenko. If ISIS want to conquer us, not kill us, they just need to get their hands on these weapons and use them discriminately against top targets and the job is done.

Biochemical weapons is the not so distant future in my book and so spending money on Trident is just for show. It's a political farce. This country should be concentrating on how to defend our country against this new threat. Nuclear weapons are so last century...