PDA

View Full Version : Wow, Thank God we don't have to pay for Trident after all.



Anfield
30-Jul-10, 15:29
It has been reported that the £20Billion cost of replacing Trident will not be paid for by us.

Instead it will have to be paid for by the Ministry Of Defence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10812825)

Corrie 3
30-Jul-10, 15:47
And who pays taxes to keep the Ministry of Defence????

Errrr........us !!!!!

One way or another it will be us paying for it!!

But at least it keeps us safe doesnt it?

:eek::confused

Alan16
30-Jul-10, 16:24
And who pays taxes to keep the Ministry of Defence????

Errrr........us !!!!!

What I'm sure the OP was trying to say was that the MoD would have to pay for it from there existing budget, so we wouldn't be paying an MoD budget + £20 Billion on top of that.

bagpuss
30-Jul-10, 16:34
Perhaps George Osborne is signalling the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan? The cost of Trident is possibly equivalent to maintaining a costly foreign war.

The Drunken Duck
30-Jul-10, 17:03
Perhaps George Osborne is signalling the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan? The cost of Trident is possibly equivalent to maintaining a costly foreign war.

With the cost of this being thrown at the MOD thats a safe bet. Hot tip is that the RAF is going to lose the Tornado fleet (the only fast jet we have in Afghan at the moment) to save 7.5 bn and that's just for starters. The next batch of Typhoons will be binned as well* .. After this round of cuts we will be left with Forces that will be barely able to fight sleep. I wont weep if we pull out of the medieval fleapit that is Afghan though. Sooner the better as far as I am concerned. Although I bet the people complaining about the cost of it now will be the ones who start wailing when the Taliban start settling scores with the locals once we have gone.

* Good news though .. apparently India has expressed an interest in buying them. Probably with the £850,000,000 we give them to combat poverty. Must be tough for them trying to do that while also building two new aircraft carriers AND funding a space and nuclear weapons program.

Thank God my reserve commitment is up.

pegasus
30-Jul-10, 17:16
.

* Good news though .. apparently India has expressed an interest in buying them. Probably with the £850,000,000 we give them to combat poverty. Must be tough for them trying to do that while also building two new aircraft carriers AND funding a space and nuclear weapons program.

<snip>

We should know. it must be tough for us to play gloabl policeman with so many in poverty depriavtion and unemplaoyment

ducati
30-Jul-10, 19:07
Well if I can't play with it, I'm not paying for it :Razz

Rheghead
30-Jul-10, 19:25
I think it is just another buck-passing manouevre by the tories.

There is enough life expectancy in the current trident subs for another 20-25 years and they took 10-15 years to build by BAESystems at their snail's pace so it is such a non-story.

So saying that the MoD has to find the budget out of their current budget is just a load of double talk and making a manifesto climb-down through smoke and mirrors.

They made Trident an election issue to make them tough on defence and this is just a clever way of getting out of it.

bagpuss
30-Jul-10, 20:03
Just a thought

Trident operates out of Holy Loch/Fasslane (Scotland)
The Tornados fly out of Lossiemouth (Scotland)
Kinloss (Scotland) is also under threat of closure

and of course Scotland is being blamed for letting the Lockerbie Bomber out.

Think the Tories have it in for us?

EDDIE
30-Jul-10, 22:49
It has been reported that the £20Billion cost of replacing Trident will not be paid for by us.

Instead it will have to be paid for by the Ministry Of Defence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10812825)

I think its complete stupidity on the government saying the replacing of trident will be paid from ministery of defence our forces protects us they should get the budget they need to do this and to carry out the job they do and the trident is something the uk needs as the ultimate detterent we are paying for it what ever way you look on it.

ducati
30-Jul-10, 22:50
Just a thought

Trident operates out of Holy Loch/Fasslane (Scotland)
The Tornados fly out of Lossiemouth (Scotland)
Kinloss (Scotland) is also under threat of closure

and of course Scotland is being blamed for letting the Lockerbie Bomber out.

Think the Tories have it in for us?

The Tories do have it in for us, but it is because we never vote for them. Well, I do, but you know what I mean :D

golach
30-Jul-10, 22:56
Just a thought

Trident operates out of Holy Loch/Fasslane (Scotland)

Faslane Naval base is on the Gare Loch not the Holy Loch[lol]

The US naval base on the Holy Loch shut down in 1992

Bazeye
31-Jul-10, 00:37
Holy Moses.

theone
31-Jul-10, 01:31
Just a thought

Trident operates out of Holy Loch/Fasslane (Scotland)
The Tornados fly out of Lossiemouth (Scotland)
Kinloss (Scotland) is also under threat of closure

and of course Scotland is being blamed for letting the Lockerbie Bomber out.

Think the Tories have it in for us?

The tories don't want rid of Trident, they want to upgrade it. The SNP are in big opposition to both Trident and it's next incarnation.

SOME Tornadoes fly out of Lossiemouth. The majority fly out of other bases.

Kinloss was under threat of closure long before the tories came into power. I haven't actually heard it discussed since they have.

Also, The Scottish government DID let the convicted Lockerbie bomber out.

I'm not a fan of the tories, but if you're going to suggest a conspiracy at least make it plausible!!!

Walter Ego
31-Jul-10, 10:03
Just a thought

Trident operates out of Holy Loch/Fasslane (Scotland)
The Tornados fly out of Lossiemouth (Scotland)
Kinloss (Scotland) is also under threat of closure

and of course Scotland is being blamed for letting the Lockerbie Bomber out.

Think the Tories have it in for us?


In a word, no.

Back to the main topic.

How about not wasting money on overblown vanity projects such as the London Olympics?

Some estimates run at up to £20bn for this feeding frenzy for London. You could buy a lot of military hardware, or build a lot of affordable housing for that amount of cash.[disgust]

Anfield
31-Jul-10, 12:24
In a word, no.

Back to the main topic.

How about not wasting money on overblown vanity projects such as the London Olympics?

Some estimates run at up to £20bn for this feeding frenzy for London. You could buy a lot of military hardware, or build a lot of affordable housing for that amount of cash.[disgust]

Quite agree about Olympics but too late to stop it now.
As with Millenium Dome, too few people with too much power do not want their ego's tarnished by saying they were wrong, plus BigBusinessPLC have greasy hands in pie

Off topic for a bit, a news item I liked this week concerned the Olympics.
It seems that the organisers are looking for 70,000 volunteers to run the games and are looking for people who are fun loving, happy open and respectful
So why are they looking in London

The Drunken Duck
31-Jul-10, 12:33
SOME Tornadoes fly out of Lossiemouth. The majority fly out of other bases.

Kinloss was under threat of closure long before the tories came into power. I haven't actually heard it discussed since they have

Sorry but where on earth do you get these claims from ??

RAF Lossiemouth is the biggest fast jet base in the RAF. It houses the majority of the RAF Tornado GR4 fleet, the rest are based at Marham in Norfolk. Lossie has XV squadron which do the conversion to the GR4 for crews, its the biggest Squadron in the RAF with almost double the number of jets of a regular squadron. Lossie has 12,14,XV and 617 while Marham has 2,9,13 and 31 there. And due to the roles of some of those units they have less airframes than squadrons at Lossie, just not enough equipped airframes available anymore. The only other base which houses Tornado's of any variety is Leuchars which has about 6 of the F3 air defence variant flying to cover Northern QRA. They will be retired very soon. The majority of Tornado airframes ARE based at Lossie.

Old mates at Kinloss tell me the base was never under threat of closure, the media might have said that but that was never the actual case. In today's climate everything is under review though and with the number of new Nimrod MRA4's being reduced from 21 to 9 it is probable that the case for keeping it open will become untenable. I was there a week ago and they are no longer even cutting the grass on the airfield, money is tight to say the least since the Nimrod MR2's went to the scrappies and museums with ten years flying life left on them. Personally it sickens me to to my stomach that the same local councillors who are fighting the placing of a permanent memorial in Forres to those lost in the Nimrod accidents in Canada in 96 and Afghan in 06 are the very same people getting upset that they will lose money if the bases do close. No wonder locals are reffered to as "Forres Gump's" at Kinloss.

I digress though .. As for the replacement of Trident, well thats not something I am sure we need anymore. But certainly not at the expense of strong conventional forces. My personal view is that if we have to release instant sunshine to win .. we have already lost. Defence funding is like house insurance, you dont buy it because you know if you are going to get burgled. You buy it just in case, because you never know do you ??

And just for the record. There seems to be an attitude with some (that's you OP) that "we" pay for Trident. Well service folks are taxpayers too and cuts and job losses affect them just as badly as anyone else. Their livelihood goes but no one creams their pants about that in the way they do if a DSS employee or a Nurse gets threatened with unemployment due to cutbacks. The Forces arent some strange set of people who are military hobbyists paid for by the rest of us, they pay into the country as much as the rest of us as well as being first in line to defend it. If the MOD have to pay for Trident then a lot of those taxpayers will be looking for work.