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

First topic message reminder :

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?

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i honestly think that the use of nuclear weapons is outdated.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...

"The next big threat will not be nuclear - it's going to be chemical."

Very likely, and in the case of jihadis and the like, their most accessible means of creating unrest amongst a civilian population.

If the aggressor should be one of the great powers, any assault will begin with a blanket jamming of all electronic devices. Civilisation as we now live it would quickly be brought to a standstill without electronics or even electricity.

Trident comes a laughable last as a DEFENCE for the UK population in the event of a WW3.

So why not get rid? and save millions?

The biggest threat to the UK today is terrorism, can we use trident on them NO because that could cause a nuclear war. I think we should get rid of trident and put some of the money saved into a weapon system we can use on Daesh (ISIL) and other terrorist groups.

It would also stop the Tories from using Austerity as a battling ram against the low paid sick & disabled people of the UK.

The Britain that Theresa May is trying to build has unstable foundations

Extracts from an article by Caroline Lucas:-

“Theresa May shares with her predecessors a penchant for big projects, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. In just a few months she has pushed a vote to renew Trident, given the go-ahead to Hinkley Point C and pledged her government’s support for the expansion of Britain’s busiest airport.

Taken separately these decisions are big. Together they tell us about the kind of Britain this government is trying to build, literally as well as metaphorically: a country ill-equipped for the future and that won’t meet its own needs; a nation whose presence on the world stage will be defined by its ability to kill millions; a Britain failing to make the economic transition necessary to free itself from the worst effects of climate change.

The choices we’re offered say just as much about the Westminster’s mindset as the final outcomes. Do we want Heathrow or Gatwick? Nuclear power or gas? Safety provided by nuclear weapons or the danger of losing them? We weren’t offered no new runways or a truly decentralised, community-owned energy system. The government didn’t ask whether we want the security of not transporting nuclear weapons across our country.

Of all of the mega-projects, it is the renewal of Trident that is potentially the most catastrophic. The arguments against Trident are well-rehearsed. But the very fact that building a new generation of weapons of mass destruction is pitched by politicians as central to our nationhood should give us pause for thought. What makes Britain need nukes so desperately when almost all other countries on earth maintain their safety without them?”

For the whole article:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/01/britain-theresa-may-build-unstable-trident-heathrow-hinkley-point

Unless I've misunderstood, the purpose of something like Trident is to demonstrate to Britain's enemies, real or imagined, present or future, that they are well-advised not to attack us, because retaliation is guaranteed and would be fatal.

Why should they believe that?  

Not even British people find what our politicians say very convincing.

The 2017 election campaign has forced "Labour" to come out of its closet-of-consensus, in order to allow Jeremy Corbyn to emphasise what he has always believed. Tories feel the need of a nuclear crutch before entering into any foreign discussion which might require willie-waving to make their point.

That point is emphasised when Government finds it necessary to ask soldiers to patrol domestic streets. The job of soldiers is to kill people. In MANCHESTER? Someone please show Peterloo on the map.

188 countries don't have nuclear weapons, but the UK does; 'the magic money tree' can always find the funds to pay for them. Of course it's more about a British empire delusion than national security. Nuclear weapons won't stop Isis and al-Qaeda from sending their fanatics to commit atrocities.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBWC6qQWsAEeqPR.jpg

Exactly

Consolation for losing an Empire?

"Trident" is just another name for penis-envy.

Unfortunately, history proves that 'the meek shall not inherit the earth'. Does anyone believe that N.Korea would give up its ambition if the rest of the world 'de-nuclearised'?. It's a sad fact of life that strength usually prevails.
Only where 2 opposing sides recognise the others strength and count the cost of war can there be peace in our world. At least until mankind has 'matured'.
Despite Churchills repeated warnings in the 30's about Germany re-arming, we closed our eyes to any threat - and would have lost the war except for the US and the Commonwealth coming to our aid.
The ideal scenario is for all nations to disarm (nuclear), but it ain't going to happen - yet anyway.
Like it or not, IMO, a strong deterent is far more effect than a weak one. This is surely borne out in everyday life. Criminals today are treated leniently, and to combat rising crime figures adjustments are made to the reporting of crimes. Since the death penalty was abolished murder has risen considerably. There are factors - rising population and more lethal weapons available - but sentences should fit the crime - taking into account extenuating circumstances, of course.

We never learn.

In 1273BCE the mighty, all conquering Hittite army under Muwattali, and with a new heavy 2 man war chariot, met RamsesII the Egyptian Pharoah, with 1 man swift moving chariots, in a battle over Syria. Battles and skirmishes went on until both leaders recognised the massive loss of men and concluded a peace treaty. Then, by the way, both claimed victory.

We never learn.

trevorw2539. You told us on 15 August that we can’t afford to spend more on health and our ageing population, yet you seem prepared to defend our absurd expenditure on nuclear weapons.

Most of the world is ‘de-nuclearised’, as the chart which I posted on this thread on 3 June illustrates. Why do Britain and France need to waste billions on nuclear weapons, yet other Europeans seem to sleep happily in their beds without them?

Why are some countries allowed to have them but not others? Is it that their leaders are considered more stable? Is Donald Trump fit to have access to the nuclear button? The other lunatic, the one who runs North Korea, will probably be put back in his box as and when the Chinese see fit, and I very much doubt if they’ll use nuclear weapons in the process.

What use are nuclear weapons against the biggest threat to our security, terrorism? The Tories have cut the number of soldiers by more than 20,000 since 2010, and there have also been cuts to the RAF and the navy. Soldiers are of more use in the fight against terrorism than Trident.

Michael Portillo was a Tory defence secretary back in the 1990s. This is what he thinks:-

"Britain now has a minute army and a microscopic navy. And as these have become smaller so the status symbol of having nuclear weapons becomes more important, at least to some people. Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn't constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds that might otherwise be spent on perfectly useful and usable weapons and troops. But some people have not caught up with this reality."

http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/2140-former-conservative-defence-secretary-slams-trident-replacement

Ivan wrote:trevorw2539. You told us on 15 August that we can’t afford to spend more on health and our ageing population, yet you seem prepared to defend our absurd expenditure on nuclear weapons.

Most of the world is ‘de-nuclearised’, as the chart which I posted on this thread on 3 June illustrates. Why do Britain and France need to waste billions on nuclear weapons, yet other Europeans seem to sleep happily in their beds without them?

Underlined is a sweeping statement.

In any case, most of Europe is under the umbrella of NATO, with its Nuclear weapons. I've not noticed those nations requesting the nuclear powers of NATO to dispense with nuclear weapons.
The NPT was instrumental in other countries withdrawing from the nuclear race but unless you talk from a position of strength you always face domination. IMO this is what North Korea is after. To be considered a powerful nuclear nation. Does anyone believe that North Korea would use these weapons against another nation. To do so would lead to the annihilation of the country of North Korea. Without the counterbalance of nuclear deterrents in the West, Russia itself would be more forceful.

Ivan wrote:Why are some countries allowed to have them but not others?

It isn't a case of allowing. The world has no say in our policy.

Regarding cost. As a pensioner, I have had to fork out for new spectacles. Not because I want to, but because I need to.

A larger army is not necessary to deal with terrorists. A bigger, more effective  counterterrorism unit and police force would suffice. If Blair hadn't involved us in the Middle East we wouldn't even need them.

Michael Portillo?  Never rated him. His opinion is just that - his.

Anyway, it's time for a cup of cocoa, some choral music by Cor Claenethwy to relax me. My routine for relaxing before bed.

As a pensioner, I have had to fork out for new spectacles. Not because I want to, but because I need to.

As a nation, we should fork out for the health of out citizens. Not because we want to, but because we need to. The country isn't worth defending at all if we can't - or won't - at least provide the basic essentials for our people.

If Blair hadn't involved us in the Middle East we wouldn't even need them.

There's a sweeping statement if you want one! Blair's actions were tantamount to poking a nest of hornets with a stick, but it's absurd to imply that only countries which got involved in the Middle East have had to combat terrorism.

Michael Portillo?  Never rated him. His opinion is just that - his.

I smell a genetic logical fallacy. I've never rated Michael Portillo either, but that's not the point. He was a defence secretary, and a Tory one at that. His opinion should at least be considered and not rejected out of hand. Even a Tory can't be wrong all the time; a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

"Events, dear boy, events."

Harold Macmillan's response to a journalist when asked what is most likely to blow governments off course.

Ivan wrote:

As a pensioner, I have had to fork out for new spectacles. Not because I want to, but because I need to.

As a nation, we should fork out for the health of out citizens. Not because we want to, but because we need to. The country isn't worth defending at all if we can't - or won't - at least provide the basic essentials for our people.

If Blair hadn't involved us in the Middle East we wouldn't even need them.

There's a sweeping statement if you want one! Blair's actions were tantamount to poking a nest of hornets with a stick, but it's absurd to imply that only countries which got involved in the Middle East have had to combat terrorism.

Michael Portillo?  Never rated him. His opinion is just that - his.

I smell a genetic logical fallacy. I've never rated Michael Portillo either, but that's not the point. He was a defence secretary, and a Tory one at that. His opinion should at least be considered and not rejected out of hand. Even a Tory can't be wrong all the time; a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

And if we don't have a nation we don't need to fork out for anything.

We don't need more troops. Bring home those we have. If needed for defence, they're here. If needed for NATO, they can be sent. What we need is modern machinery and weapons for our troops. A couple of decades from now we won't fight man-to-man, but machine to machine. Guided by a few 'pilots'. We already see this in the use of drones in warfare. Missiles targetted a thousand miles from its destination point. The future lies in strength - as it always has. As someone once said 'a king does not go to warfare without first weighing up his chances' - Well, that's my version.

Until the invasion of Iraq, nearly all Middle East wars were settled by the Middle East nations. When Iraq invaded Iranian territory, Hussein was given a bloody nose and sent packing. Throughout the period of Islam - 1400 years - they have fought amongst themselves. 'The Hornets Nest' was best left to its go about its own business.
Had we just fulfilled our commitments to Kuwait, and left it there, who knows what would have happened? But when we defeated Hussein and failed to get an established 'democracy' - Western style - an impossible task with conditions in the country where religious groups were never going to come together - united.

No-one in their right mind wants a war. And like the 1930's we don't want to think it might happen. But it did then, and we nearly lost by not being Boy Scouts.

Over the centuries we've conquered, 'enslaved' the people and devoured the natural resources of many countries. How? By military might. Not that it is something to be proud of.

A broken clock is just that. In these days of use and throw away it needs to be 'chucked'. And for 6 months it only tells a man-made time anyway. BST.

Sorry, I've gone off subject.

"It's an evil wind indeed that brings no good" (anon)

How can we know what changes are beneficial, and which are not? Nuclear bombs ended a War in 1945, but threaten to begin one in 2017. What changed?

There is no shortage of intelligent folk who can tell us what is wrong with the World, but a deathly silence about any cure. Governments are "elected" to steer a straight course to prosperity for everyone but end in squabbling over the method.

A cross-eyed French philosopher exclaimed. "Hell is other people!"

Was he wrong?

OW wrote:It's an evil wind indeed that brings no good.

It's an evil wind that brings no good air - Aretha Franklin

Not the ill wind which blows no man to good. Henry IV

PS to my last post.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/the-cause-of-world-war-3-elon-musk-reacts-to-putins-claim-ai-leaders-will-rule-the-world/ar-AArfET5?li=AA54rU

Messrs Musk and Dyson coincide in many beliefs - the primary being "I'm always right." Certainly each has set up a profitable business, but so did Eastman (Kodak) and Woolworth.

On the topic of Trident, I think North Korea is simply aiming for the same goal as Britain - A Deterrent - the only difference being they'll give it a different name.

oftenwrong wrote:Messrs Musk and Dyson coincide in many beliefs - the primary being "I'm always right."  Certainly each has set up a profitable business, but so did Eastman (Kodak) and Woolworth.

On the topic of Trident, I think North Korea is simply aiming for the same goal as Britain - A Deterrent - the only difference being they'll give it a different name.

You may be right, but that does not give them the right to invade another's air space (Japan). Another thing. Is Kim 'crazypants' actually in charge, or is he a frontman for a more sinister group? Well, you've got to have a conspiracy theory somewhere.
And I'll kick Kims a... if anything happens to my son who's teaching English in a Japanese school for a year

These are interesting times to be living in.

oftenwrong wrote:These are interesting times to be living in.

Interesting is one word for them.

The arguments for and against the UK retaining a nuclear deterrent have been visited and revisted over the past 60 years and no issue is more well-trodden.

The Green Party still has a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and is therefore opposed to the 'upgrading' of Trident. My goal is to achieve this but I am at heart a pragmatist and believe in the best available compromise on the most crucial matters that confront us.

I will rehearse a few key points:

1/ Cost: Reference has been made to a cost of £20 billion although most experts put the whole life cost of a four submarine Trident system at over £100 billion. The first question is can the UK afford it and the second, can we spend the money more wisely on different types of defence and non-defence areas? I suggest the answers are no and yes respectively.

2/ Deterrent value:  No-one can deny that the UK has not come under nuclear attack since we became a nuclear armed power. However, possessing nuclear weapons did not deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, the Cod Wars with Iceland or decades of terrorist attacks on the UK. In the case of the US, they did not prevent the attacks on New York or Washington DC. A single (non nuclear armed) submarine in the South Atlantic deterred an earlier signalled invasion of the Falklands when David Owen was Labour's Foreign Secretary in the 1970's - the proper use of a viable military deterrent.

3/ Morality / Useability: Although destructive power of the Trident submarines can vary with payload and warhead type, each sub can carry give or take 148 times the megatonnage of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. If we presume we are likely to have at least 2 of 4 subs available at any one time, the UK has a weapon which could surely only ever be deployed as its contribution towards global Armageddon. Hardly a flexible or measured weapons system and that's before we go into the morality of genocide.

I will continue to campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament but I believe a majority of people in the UK will want to retain it for the foreseeable future. I think there is an interim deal to be done which would involve scrapping the Trident upgrade and replacing it with nuclear warheads on Cruise missiles - an existing off the shelf delivery system that can be launched from air, sea or land. It would enable a large financial saving and achieve nuclear de-escalation while retaining a viable nuclear deterrent in an increasingly unstable world.

The logic of Trident is identical to the logic of a honey-bee.

When a honey bee stings a person, it cannot pull the barbed stinger back out. It leaves behind not only the stinger, but also part of its abdomen and digestive tract, plus muscles and nerves. This massive abdominal rupture kills the honey bee. Honey bees are the only bees to die after stinging.

And didn't even need an investment of £*billion.

I can never really understand why these sane and fact-based opinions and analogies fail to convince the folk who bleat on about how losing Trident would leave us 'defenceless'

Actually, a better form of self-defence would be avoidance of foreign imperial adventures like Iraq, investment in diplomacy and foreign aid, and the maintenance of decently equipped and manned armed forces who could be deployed to help out in crisis situations (for example the current extreme weather crises)

That sounds dangerously like common-sense, probably itself destined to be proscribed under a fascist post-brexit Tory regime.

I wait nightly for the secret police pounding on the door - have a selection of glamorous nightwear so I'll be a lovely corpse