View Full Version : Alternative to Trident
Loch not Lock
22-Apr-10, 08:52
Instead of wasting billions on Trident we should scrap the lot and bring back the Home Guard. Nick Clegg should recommend this on tonight's TV debate.
Instead of wasting billions on Trident we should scrap the lot and bring back the Home Guard. Nick Clegg should recommend this on tonight's TV debate.
Or we could just launch them all now, then we wouldn't need them in future. And we wouldn't have wasted all that money-simples :eek:
northener
22-Apr-10, 13:09
Instead of wasting billions on Trident we should scrap the lot and bring back the Home Guard. Nick Clegg should recommend this on tonight's TV debate.
Aye, they don't like it up 'em.
Green_not_greed
22-Apr-10, 15:37
Instead of wasting billions on Trident we should scrap the lot and bring back the Home Guard. Nick Clegg should recommend this on tonight's TV debate.
I heard almost the same story, except that instead of bringing back the Home Guard they are to spend the money getting ready for a major leafletting campaign saying why its bad to fight.......
Instead of wasting billions on Trident we should scrap the lot and bring back the Home Guard. Nick Clegg should recommend this on tonight's TV debate.
I dont think its a waste of money its the best defence system going not many countrys would even dare invade a country with nuclear capabilitys that could be deployed anywere around the world?
Im not a fan of nuclear weapons but i still think it necessary to have them
I dont think its a waste of money its the best defence system going not many countrys would even dare invade a country with nuclear capabilitys that could be deployed anywere around the world?
Im not a fan of nuclear weapons but i still think it necessary to have them
That's a MAD idea ;)
I dont think its a waste of money its the best defence system going not many countrys would even dare invade a country with nuclear capabilitys that could be deployed anywere around the world?
Im not a fan of nuclear weapons but i still think it necessary to have them
Er......we are being "invaded".
There is only one thing that should replace Trident and that is a Fork.
After all a Trident only has 3 Prongs where a Fork has 4 Prongs so should be a lot better [lol]
Loch not Lock
23-Apr-10, 00:04
There is only one thing that should replace Trident and that is a Fork.
After all a Trident only has 3 Prongs where a Fork has 4 Prongs so should be a lot better [lol]
Could not agree more, Kodiak, especially if it came with candles.:)
Bobinovich
23-Apr-10, 00:15
Two Ronnies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2VQ) - classic sketch
Got any 'ose?
Haha I never looked at this thread cos I THOUGHT it was serious! :roll:
John Little
23-Apr-10, 07:35
Since I am unable to conceive that we would ever use nuclear weapons independently of the Americans I think we would never use them at all. We should stop acting like a superpower and cut our coats according to our cloth.
Our armed forces are small and professional and we seem to use them a lot more these days. However a lot of their equipment seems to be aging from what I read, their pay insufficient, their housing inadequate and their budgets run on a shoestring.
So instead of having it and being able to shout 'I've got a big 'un' at international conferences, which is what it's really about, why don't we use the cash to give our military the best kit etc that we can possibly get instead of buying an expensive toy for a Cold War which ended 20 years ago?
What you have just expressed, John, could be true of many sectors of this country! Instead of doing what this country thinks makes it look good/important this country should actually spend money effectively to make a nation to be proud of!
John Little
23-Apr-10, 09:23
Oh aye - that is what Clegg means too when he spoke of our delusions. We are no longer a super-power despite beating the Germans 60 odd years ago. We are a middle ranking economy off the coast of Europe and it's time we started acting like one. As a super-power we are the pauper relation.
As a prosperous European nation minding our own business we would carry more weight and not be sneered at for attempting to punch above our weight and hanging on to the Yanks.
Instead of wasting billions on Trident we should scrap the lot and bring back the Home Guard. Nick Clegg should recommend this on tonight's TV debate.
Scrapping Trident - another nail in the coffin but not of the human race - of Vulcan Base and lots of lost jubs. Also huge loss of jobs in other parts of Scotland. Whether we like it of not two reasons for keeping Trident -
Thread from Iran, North Korea, and some others
Loss of jobs at home and export - huge loss directly and indirectly
John Little
23-Apr-10, 09:39
"Loss of jobs at home and export - huge loss directly and indirectly "
100 billion buys a lot of other jobs - ship building especially, engineering. I'm not advocating taking the money from defence - just using it for the wars we actually fight.
"I'm not advocating taking the money from defence - just using it for the wars we actually fight."
Its ok to talk about the wars that we actually fight, but what about the wars of the future? Surely its just as important to think about future wars and being ready for them as well? Trident is a deterrent, I certainly wouldnt sleep as good as night without knowing it wasnt there!
My views are pretty much the same as those pointed out by EDDIE "its the best defence system going not many countrys would even dare invade a country with nuclear capabilitys that could be deployed anywere around the world".
Boozeburglar
23-Apr-10, 13:39
Just exactly who is it that is deterred by Trident?
Can anyone explain this to me?
I don't think it would make any difference at all if we had no such weapons.
Perhaps we would have a better position in suggesting other countries got rid of them or did not try to develop them.
John Little
23-Apr-10, 13:59
"many countrys would even dare invade a country with nuclear capabilitys that could be deployed anywere around the world".
They cannot be used because they are not weapons- they have no military use. They are instruments of genocide.
General Omar Bradley.
"they have no military use."
Their military use is as a deterrence, you arent going to fire nukes at a country knowing fine well that they have the capability to start firing back.
"I don't think it would make any difference at all if we had no such weapons.
Perhaps we would have a better position in suggesting other countries got rid of them or did not try to develop them."
Boozeburglar that is a fair suggestion, however as long as there are rouge states in the world it will never be quite as easy, or even worth the risk, is it not all just a trust thing counntries worldwide, that realistically is never going to happen?
The Drunken Duck
23-Apr-10, 14:12
The simple fact is that if any country is thinking about agressive action against us they would have to consider the fact that we have the capability to turn their mountians into glass. Without it they wouldnt. The world is a fast changing place and who is to say that in another thirty years they might well be needed ??, its better to have a stick and not need it than to need one and not have it.
I love all the wailing and hand wringing about Nukes. At the end of the day the AK-47 has killed a lot more people but I dont see people clamouring for its removal from history.
John Little
23-Apr-10, 14:38
"Their military use is as a deterrence, you arent going to fire nukes at a country knowing fine well that they have the capability to start firing back."
Correct. But it is existential. President Truman was asking Bradley if America shoudl build the H bomb. It was his opinion that they were not weapons because they were not for any military purpose. Their only use was to kill a lot of people and only a madman would use it.
He concluded;
We must build it because for us not to have it and the Soviets to have it is intolerable. In other words it deters purely because it exists. Not because it can be used.
My opinion is that we don't need it. I'd rather see a state of the art army, navy and airforce with superb kit, able to carry out the jobs that it has to do, not the ones which exist as a remote possibility.
Your mileage may vary - and probably does.
Don't think it's really an 'expensive toy' it served it's purpose from 1945 onwards, the MAD situation.
More recently the world has become a much more dangerous place. Nuclear weapons obviously have no purpose with nuclear terrorists , I know I use the well-worn phrase "rogue states" but it is a fact, maybe Iran and North Korea who are developing long range missiles are benevolent. what other countries are moving along the nuclear weapons belt?
Syria is nonetheless suspected of harbouring nuclear weapons ambitions. Taiwan’s pursuit of nuclear weapons back in the 1970s may reignite bearing mistrust of their neighbours, the old communist bloc nuclear ambitions, Russian General Alexander Lebed, has stated that some 100 "suitcase sized" nuclear weapons are unaccounted for, we have China, France, Russia, UK, US India, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, who have them now
It sickens me to hear Britain being knocked, 'second rate power', 'we're a nothing', 'a nobody'. that 'Patriotism' is a dirty word, archaic. For all its faults - and there are plenty. It's the only country I would live in. And I've lived and visited over 30 others.
We, like the French, have an Independent deterrent who have offered to create a joint UK-French nuclear deterrent by sharing submarine patrols, would cut costs, incidentally you would never hear the French knocking their country like some here.
It took just two missiles to get the Japanese to surrender, how long would we last?
We cannot rely on an American umbrella. Crudely put me thinks that a rogue state shooting a nuclear tipped weapon unto us would think twice if the reality of being blatted out of existence was there. In theory (of course) if Iran had the 'bomb' do you think they would think twice before quote; 'wiping Israel off the face of the earth' and gaining kudos from others, if IDF was not nuclear armed?
Britain has already cut its operationally available nuclear arsenal by 20 per cent to around 160 warheads. The ridiculous idea that we get rid of our nuclear deterrents and others will follow, is pie in the sky. In World WarII, 37 million died, Bullets and bombs do kill more.
IMO, saying that getting rid of Trident and the money goes elsewhere is as honest as saying Road Tax will pay for the roads and the Fuel Duty will pay from 'schools and hospitals'..
"Speak softly but carry a big sick"...
Loch not Lock
25-Apr-10, 12:26
Scrapping Trident - another nail in the coffin but not of the human race - of Vulcan Base and lots of lost jubs. Also huge loss of jobs in other parts of Scotland. Whether we like it of not two reasons for keeping Trident -
Thread from Iran, North Korea, and some others
Loss of jobs at home and export - huge loss directly and indirectly
There would be no job losses if the Vulcan worker's were recruited into the Home Guard. More Captain Mainwaring types are what Britain needs to protect our shores.
The Drunken Duck
25-Apr-10, 13:29
The whole reason for having a deterrent is so we dont end up fighting for our survival on our own shores.
And we had better keep Trident for one simple reason. We cannot defend our shores anymore. The Air Defence of the UK currently relies on two squadron of Typhoons and about a dozen or so Tornado F3's, and the F3's are long in the tooth and will be gone very soon. The air defence of the UK is mandated for FIVE Air Defence Squadrons yet we only have two. Allowing for maintenance, and aircraft going U/S that means we have a total of MAYBE 15-18 aircraft to defend the UK on any given day. To put that in context the US Air Force have more aircraft assigned to guard Washington on a daily basis than we have for the whole country.
Our Navy is virtually non existent and we have just retired the Nimrod early, that means we are an Island nation with no maritime patrol capability. And one of the Nimrods tasks was to sanitise the area surrounding the missile subs before they submerged and went on patrol. The Russians have stepped up the probing of our air defences and only a fool would now bet on them not doing so underwater now that we have lost a major capability to track them.
The notion we can "defend our shores" is a laughable one. With our lame level of defences, and against a competent enemy, it would be like using a Shotgun against a Freight Train.
John Little
25-Apr-10, 13:33
I thought I was going to say no more on this Duck but you just backed up what I said. Our conventional defences are so lame precisely because we spent too much on the nuclear option.
Just imagine what we could have if we spent the £100 Billion on proper defences!
David Banks
25-Apr-10, 13:45
Since I am unable to conceive that we would ever use nuclear weapons independently of the Americans I think we would never use them at all. We should stop acting like a superpower and cut our coats according to our cloth.
Our armed forces are small and professional and we seem to use them a lot more these days. However a lot of their equipment seems to be aging from what I read, their pay insufficient, their housing inadequate and their budgets run on a shoestring.
So instead of having it and being able to shout 'I've got a big 'un' at international conferences, which is what it's really about, why don't we use the cash to give our military the best kit etc that we can possibly get instead of buying an expensive toy for a Cold War which ended 20 years ago?
. . . in 1975 and not kept 'up-to-date' I was surprised to recently find out that most of the care for your returning wounded military is left up to charities.
If this is true, could not the government do a better job for its veterans ?
. . .I was surprised to recently find out that most of the care for your returning wounded military is left up to charities.
If this is true, could not the government do a better job for its veterans ?
As a member of the Royal British Legion, Erskine Edinburgh and the Royal Naval Association, all military charities, I have yet to see, where our returning wounded are solely being treated by charities, I am surprised where you get this information!!
David Banks
25-Apr-10, 15:51
As a member of the Royal British Legion, Erskine Edinburgh and the Royal Naval Association, all military charities, I have yet to see, where our returning wounded are solely being treated by charities, I am surprised where you get this information!!
Are the groups you mention 100% government/taxpayer funded ?
Are the groups you mention 100% government/taxpayer funded ?
No they are Military institutions begun to help and assist all serving and ex-service personnel, there is no government/taxpayer funding, they are registered charities under the Charities Act.
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/
http://www.royal-naval-association.co.uk/
http://www.erskine.org.uk/
David Banks
25-Apr-10, 16:41
No they are Military institutions begun to help and assist all serving and ex-service personnel, there is no government/taxpayer funding, they are registered charities under the Charities Act.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Do you not think that part of the government's defence budget should be spent on taking proper care of those who return from war, especially those who have lasting disabilities -- rather than depend on charities ?
I am sure the charities do good work based upon the funding they can get.
I have heard that more people have committed suicide since returning from the Falklands than were killed during that war. My view is that it would need the resources only a government could provide to properly care for those who were so seriously affected.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Do you not think that part of the government's defence budget should be spent on taking proper care of those who return from war, especially those who have lasting disabilities -- rather than depend on charities ?
I am sure the charities do good work based upon the funding they can get.
I have heard that more people have committed suicide since returning from the Falklands than were killed during that war. My view is that it would need the resources only a government could provide to properly care for those who were so seriously affected.
Where do you hear these things? You post these fictitious statements, but show no proof.
The RBL & the RNA are long standing social and charitable institutions, there are even branches in Canada, no doubt they help your Canadian servicemen and ex-servicemen over there also. Does your Government provide free and full medical cover to the wounded servicemen of Canada?
That was the point I was trying to make.
Do you not think that part of the government's defence budget should be spent on taking proper care of those who return from war, especially those who have lasting disabilities -- rather than depend on charities ?
.
Instead of getting sued by some bint in the Army because she couldnt get a babysitter.
Where do you hear these things? You post these fictitious statements, but show no proof.
He got it from here.
Some white poppy mob, - don't know where they got it from. here's another:
"More than five times the number of British troops killed in the last Gulf war have also committed suicide"
http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/white_relatedtx/a1.html (http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/white_relatedtx/a1.html)
Sara Jevo
25-Apr-10, 18:14
I dont think its a waste of money its the best defence system going not many countrys would even dare invade a country with nuclear capabilitys that could be deployed anywere around the world?
Im not a fan of nuclear weapons but i still think it necessary to have them
So, at a time when the country is stoney-broke, you'd rather spend the money on building monstrous bombs than, say, preserving health services from cuts, keeping open schools?
That's what it boils down to. The country can't afford both. And who exactly are we defending ourselves against with a system designed for a war that never happened?
I had no idea Iran and North Korea were our enemies. America's? Probably. The UK's? I dont think so.
I don't see Italy, or Spain, or Sweden, or Australia, or Denmark, or countless other countries rushing to waste their money on weapons like this. So why UK?
I had no idea Iran and North Korea were our enemies. America's? Probably. The UK's? I dont think so.
'Why Iran hates Britain so much'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/5689752/Why-Iran-hates-Britain-so-much.html
Sara Jevo
25-Apr-10, 19:42
'Why Iran hates Britain so much'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/5689752/Why-Iran-hates-Britain-so-much.html
Interesting article.
Having meddled in Iran's affairs for so long, including the overthrow of a democratic government, I'd have thought it was in Britain's interests - and a lot cheaper - to engage in a more diplomatic approach.
The only thing that building more destructive weapons does is escalate things.
And so what if some radical leaders lob some insults this way? Does that justify spending 100 billion? There are a lot cheaper and less destructive ways to avoid hostilities.
If, as this article suggests, Britain has meddled in Iran's affairs for such a long time, what sort of message does a re-armament of Britain send to Iran? Time to build your own bomb, perhaps, if you want to stop any more meddling?
When people find they cannot get an operation, or their school is closed because teachers cannot be hired, or roads go unrepaired, I hope the knowledge that 100 billion was spent on some bombs will bring them comfort. Nuclear weapons are as obselete as they are obscene.
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth142097.html)
I think you are being rather naive thinking that any money saved by going down (I presume) the CND route will go towards the usual knee-jerk list; Hospitals, Schools, Roads - no mention of Police I see. Remember the fuel blockade? you know the one, where certain politicians were telling us that the fuel tax paid for 'Hospitals, Schools' and our Road Tax paid for the roads.
Your quote of 100 billion was spouted by Clegg. It is not clear how Mr Clegg concludes that replacing Trident would cost up to £100billion. An estimate suggested that it would cost between £15billion and £25billion to replace, not taking into account maintenance costs. Adding that in would cost a maximum of £76billion - but paid over three decades.
"Building more destructive weapons" do you mean 'more' in number or in power? "re-armament of Britain" - um, we're already armed - we're not going to throw our present one's away and start again.. (Germany 're-armed' i.e. had none, got some.)
Nuclear weapons are not obsolete - and exactly why are they 'obscene' as they've killed no one for 65 years whereas bullets and conventional bombs have killed millions - I call that 'obscene' unless I was CND.
Our world is a much more dangerous place, rogue states are spouting. Never mind if you get your way, you can hide under the Yank's skirt..
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." by Vegetius
Sara Jevo
25-Apr-10, 21:48
Nuclear weapons are not obsolete - and exactly why are they 'obscene' as they've killed no one for 65 years whereas bullets and conventional bombs have killed millions - I call that 'obscene' unless I was CND.
I agree. War is such a waste. The loss of life is obscene.
If nuclear weapons have been such a success, why have so many millions died and continue to die?
Nuclear weapons are particularly obscene weapons because they are indinscriminate in their slaughter.
Who do they deter?
Not terrorists, that's for sure.
Any hostility towards Britain is shaped by our foreign policy and its impact.
Having their finger on the nuke trigger just gives our politicians delusions of grandeur when it comes to foreign policy.
Spending 100 billion on nuclear weapons is the hallmark of a country that's morally bankrupt as well as financially bankrupt.
John Little
25-Apr-10, 22:02
"Nuclear weapons"
Sorry to keep harping on about this but I must bring in Bradley again. The whole point of it is what he said - 'They are not weapons; they have no military purpose. They are instruments of genocide.'
That is the obscenity of them because Genocide is obscene.
Bradley went ahead with nuclear proliferation purely on the basis of deterrence of the Soviet union.
During the 1950s the US spent countless billions on nuclear weapons. By 1962 they had enough to destroy the world 6 times over. But it was at the expense of their conventional forces.
When Kennedy asked what his military options were in the case of war against Russia in 1962 his advisers told him that the US no longer had the capacity for conventional war against Russia.
He then asked what he could do, and they told him that there would have to be a nuclear exchange. He then asked what US casualties would be in the event of such an exchange and they gave him a conservative estimate of 20,000,000 americans.
'That is completely unacceptable' was his response.
So Robert McNamara came up with SIOP - the single integrated operational plan which sought to balance nuclear with conventional.
That balance the US built up during the 1960s and 70s until they could once again wage conventional war with confidence in victory.
No matter what we spend on it, Trident is a chimera which appears to offer defence but as Kennedy found, is was an illusion.
We need to tailor our needs - yes- have a few nuclear cruise missiles by all means, bought from the yanks.
But Trident is the ornament to sit on the mantlepiece.
Who is going to attack us? We are part of NATO and with the US; we do not act alone in the event of nuclear war.
But good conventional forces to do the jobs we give them - that, surely is more of the real world?
Give our troops the tools to do the job instead of pinching to buy gew-gaws we'll never use.
Sara Jevo
25-Apr-10, 22:25
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies
hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction
of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of
annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength To Love, 1963.
I look at MLK's words and they ring true for me in the context of the escalating tension worldwide between muslim communities and christian communities.
Before September 11, how many muslims in the UK would have been willing to throw down their life for the sake of blowing up a bus, a train or a plane?
The strategic aim of the Islamic terrorists in 2001 was not to kill some innocent people. It was to provoke their enemy into retaliation, to escalate their conflict into a state of international conflict and utlimately change the world order. They poked at a beehive.
Their aggression towards America resulted in American aggression with its allies in Afghanistan and then Iraq.
How many innocents died in New York? A few thousand?
How many innocents have died in Afghanistan and Iraq? Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
The images of aggression by America and its allies - missile strikes on wedding parties, torture in jail cells, guantanamo etc - became the recruiting sergeant for the extremist cause.
Several countries now in the region are pursuing nuclear programmes. Iran is held up to world agnst, but Jordan, UAE and others are all down the nuclear route to varying degrees. Israel is already there. So too Pakistan and India. There is new suspicion about Syria.
Why? It is the next phase of escalation. Arming yourself with a nuke is a deterrent against aggression by another power armed with nukes, i.e. the US.
It is the escalation, the spiral towards annihilation.
I think Obama sees it. The disarmament conference in New York last week is but a small step. He is corralled by expectations of mainstream america.
I look around for leadership from somewhere that can break this cycle of aggression, the escalation that gives rise to the BNP, the radicalisation of British muslims, the imperial jingoism, the xenophobia.
Throw into the mix the global recession, the inexorable shift in the centre of economic gravity from the US to China and India, and we find ourselves in an increasingly tense and billigerent world. We are exactly where Al Qaedia on September 11 wanted to take us.
The whole reason for having a deterrent is so we dont end up fighting for our survival on our own shores.
And we had better keep Trident for one simple reason. We cannot defend our shores anymore. The Air Defence of the UK currently relies on two squadron of Typhoons and about a dozen or so Tornado F3's, and the F3's are long in the tooth and will be gone very soon. The air defence of the UK is mandated for FIVE Air Defence Squadrons yet we only have two. Allowing for maintenance, and aircraft going U/S that means we have a total of MAYBE 15-18 aircraft to defend the UK on any given day. To put that in context the US Air Force have more aircraft assigned to guard Washington on a daily basis than we have for the whole country.
Our Navy is virtually non existent and we have just retired the Nimrod early, that means we are an Island nation with no maritime patrol capability. And one of the Nimrods tasks was to sanitise the area surrounding the missile subs before they submerged and went on patrol. The Russians have stepped up the probing of our air defences and only a fool would now bet on them not doing so underwater now that we have lost a major capability to track them.
The notion we can "defend our shores" is a laughable one. With our lame level of defences, and against a competent enemy, it would be like using a Shotgun against a Freight Train.
Oh, O, I feel the need for a Landrover and pair of Vickers coming on :eek:
If we think our own deterrent will deter the worlds (other) nut cases I feel we may be mistaken.
We need an effective defence against the bloke with one bomb.
Loch not Lock
26-Apr-10, 08:44
So, at a time when the country is stoney-broke, you'd rather spend the money on building monstrous bombs than, say, preserving health services from cuts, keeping open schools?
That's what it boils down to. The country can't afford both. And who exactly are we defending ourselves against with a system designed for a war that never happened?
I had no idea Iran and North Korea were our enemies. America's? Probably. The UK's? I dont think so.
I don't see Italy, or Spain, or Sweden, or Australia, or Denmark, or countless other countries rushing to waste their money on weapons like this. So why UK?
You're words shows great wisdom, Sara Jevo. I agree with you on every count. Why do so many other people absorb the propaganda that the UK is under such a great threat of being attacked or invaded. Nonsense!
An interesting piece by By Caroline Wyatt,Defence correspondent, BBC News today.
'Opponents of Britain's nuclear weapons system, including Greenpeace, claim the full cost of replacing and running the Trident system on a like-for-like basis, as both Labour and the Conservatives have pledged to do, will be between £80bn and £100bn in total
That works out at around £2bn pounds per year over the system's expected lifetime of 40 years, or some 5% of the annual defence budget, which currently stands at £38bn a year.
Trident's ballistic missiles have a long range, of up to 7,500 miles. One alternative that has been suggested is using cruise missiles based on different submarines. However, cruise missiles have a far shorter range, of over 1,000 miles, and are slower and more vulnerable to being shot down.
British governments have studied three times whether there are cheaper ways than Trident (or its predecessor) of achieving the same aims, but each study concluded that this type of system provided the most credible and reliable nuclear weapon.
Whether other potential alternatives would be much cheaper in practice is also disputed. If Britain chose a cruise-missile system, it would probably have to develop its own missile programme, bearing all the research and development costs.
Dr Lee Willett, head of Maritime Studies Programme at the defence and security think-tank Royal United Services Institute, tells me a cruise missile has "neither the speed, the range or the survivability" of a ballistic missile.
He also says a cruise missile has significant consequences in terms of cost, as there is no hypersonic long-range cruise missile on the market - so Britain would have to look at developing one at great expense.
Others have suggested using a land-based delivery system, to avoid the cost of building new submarines. But that has been rejected in the past as too vulnerable to attack - and impractical on these crowded islands. The White Paper also concluded that the lifetime cost of this option would be double those of the submarine option.
Some say it would be cheaper to launch missiles from a long-range aircraft. However, the shorter range would again be an issue - and the aircraft could be brought down. The White Paper also examined having a large surface ship that could launch Trident missiles, but judged that the vessel would be too easy to detect.
So yes - there are alternatives to Trident. But they are not necessarily cheaper, nor able to do what the current system does. So if the UK decides it wants to remain a nuclear power, most defence experts believe Trident remains the only really credible option.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8636879.stm
Having nuclear capabilities is such a good detterant (sorry think thats spelt wrong) i would hate to see the world entering into a nuclear war but there is sense taking a knife to a gun fight?:confused
Your quote of 100 billion was spouted by Clegg. It is not clear how Mr Clegg concludes that replacing Trident would cost up to £100billion. An estimate suggested that it would cost between £15billion and £25billion to replace, not taking into account maintenance costs. Adding that in would cost a maximum of £76billion - but paid over three decades.
"
Whats our net annual contribution to the EU, 4 or 5 billion?
Withdrawing from it would save a few bob, wouldnt it?
Whats our net annual contribution to the EU, 4 or 5 billion?
Withdrawing from it would save a few bob, wouldnt it?
Don't build submarines for a living per chance? :lol:
John Little
26-Apr-10, 20:06
Tell you what- spend £100 billion in Barrow, or Rosyth or Clydeside or Yeovil in building British weapons instead of in San Diego on US missiles and you pay a lot of british mortgages, put a lot of Sunday joints on tables and clothes on british backs.
Charity begins at home.
Tell you what- spend £100 billion in Barrow, or Rosyth or Clydeside or Yeovil in building British weapons instead of in San Diego on US missiles and you pay a lot of british mortgages, put a lot of Sunday joints on tables and clothes on british backs.
Charity begins at home.
Go to the workers car parks at all these places and set fire to any that aren't Rovers [lol]
John Little
26-Apr-10, 20:13
Can I start with the Ducatis and Alfa Romeos? [lol] :roll::lol:
Can I start with the Ducatis and Alfa Romeos? [lol] :roll::lol:
You can. Although if you just wait a mo they will probably burst into flames on their own (I'm laughing, but you used too many).
Don't build submarines for a living per chance? :lol:
Cant say,. Official Secrets Act and all that. ;)
David Banks
29-Apr-10, 02:43
Where do you hear these things? You post these fictitious statements, but show no proof.
The RBL & the RNA are long standing social and charitable institutions, there are even branches in Canada, no doubt they help your Canadian servicemen and ex-servicemen over there also. Does your Government provide free and full medical cover to the wounded servicemen of Canada?
The statements came from an orger who was an ex-soldier, and he surprised me with some of his comments. I have no reason to doubt the genuinness of his comments.
I am sure the charities are as honorable and hard working as you state.
My point was that, if there was some discussion on what the better use of government money would be, then if the government added their resources to what was already being done, the ex-servicemen could have better long term care.
The government were the ones who sent the service people out to the field in the first place and should bear some responsibility for them when they return.
I have no idea how the Canadian system works, to tell the truth, but I strongly doubt it is a 100% charity process.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.