PDA

View Full Version : The real cost of Trident



BetterTogether
30-Oct-15, 18:35
Over the past few years I've read a lot of posts from various media sources about the cost of Trident, some ranging from £100 Billion all the way up to £167 Billion. I totally accept weapons systems are expensive but over inflating costs does the argument for or against no favours. If a debate is to be had over whether Trident is worth the money then we should at least start with set of figures that are honest not conflated to make political capital from an already contentious issue. I've put a link from the Uk defence journal which gives a break down of the costs and explanations for those interested to read. The total costs seem to be £75 Billion with £60 Billion spread over 30 years.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-much-will-replacing-trident-cost/?utm_source=FB&utm_medium=UKDJ+Facebook+Page&utm_campaign=SNAP

dozy
30-Oct-15, 19:38
I find it strange to the Westminster Government are stating that the trident replacement will have a life of 30 years plus . This is a total UNTRUTH , the reactor is it lock and load type that's fuelled of 25 years MAX . The pressure hull will not last to the 30 years stated . The cost per year will rocket and the system is still controlled by the USA as they and they alone hold the GC codes ( not the GO code as the films state) GC stands for guidance control. So all the lies from the Unionist WMD huggers are only believed by those who have Taken up the Fear Me mantra of the Tories .

BetterTogether
31-Oct-15, 11:17
Care to provide a verifiable source for your information Dozy. I don't claim to be an expert on Nuclear weapons you seem to provide information but would be good to see where you get your information from.

Gronnuck
31-Oct-15, 11:44
Interesting articles h (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk)ere and h (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm)ere. If these weapons of mass destruction are so necessary why do our European allies (except France) not have them too?

BetterTogether
31-Oct-15, 16:52
How many of those European countries are members of NATO that should in part answer your question.

Alrock
31-Oct-15, 19:55
How many of those European countries are members of NATO that should in part answer your question.

erm... most of them...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Major_NATO_affiliations_in_Europe.svg/375px-Major_NATO_affiliations_in_Europe.svg.png

So doesn't answer it at all...

You could also ask though... If these weapons of mass destruction are so necessary why do our European NATO allies (except France) not have them too?

But back to your original point... whether it's £167 billion or £75 billion, still hell of a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere...

BetterTogether
01-Nov-15, 09:55
NATO provides a mutual defence treaty if one NATO country is attacked. As U.K, France and USA all have nuclear weapons it provides nuclear deterrent for all of them. Germany used to have nuclear weapons on its soil even though they weren't German controlled.

Modern defence systems are expensive that's just a reality removing the biggest deterrent we have achieves nothing when it comes to larger more powerful aggressors. Agreed it does little to protect from the likes of Isis but can any of you look forward into the future and categorically state that non of the large aggressors will not be emboldened by disarming. As it is they hold an uncomfortable peace that has kept Europe safe since the end of WWII.
The only modem county to disarm itself of a nuclear deterrent has been Ukraine.

Alrock
01-Nov-15, 11:42
OK, so let me get this straight...

We need nuclear weapons just incase something unpredictable happens in the future that it turns out we need them for?

On those grounds then maybe we should also be investing in chemical & biological weapon systems because you never know, something might happen in the future that we need them for....

weeker2014
01-Nov-15, 11:43
So why should we pay to protect other countries with our weapons? Shouldnt they all be contributing to the cost if they are part of NATO. Or alternatively take it out of the hands of individual countries and all members contribute to a NATO controlled deterrent. Either way it will be a damn sight cheaper than 100 billion to the UK and may subside some of the fears that the UK has a deterrent where many other countries dont. I expect a shared NATO deterrent would be a lot more digestable.

BetterTogether
01-Nov-15, 16:00
Let's put it this way even if Scotland did manage to become independent and get ride of all nuclear weapons from its borders it wouldn't help it one jot if the day came that they needed to be used, meanwhile it would still benefit from have a nuclear power and large conventional weapons user as a neighbour. The reality is an independent Scotland would never be able to defend its own borders give the sheer geographical size of them so it would always be reliant on its larger neighbour being there just in case. Given that an independent Scotland would have to be agreeable to nuclear weapons to be able to join NATO its a bit of a non argument. Who would want to live in a virtually defenceless country totally reliant on the goodwill of its neighbours for protection.

dozy
01-Nov-15, 18:18
Let's put it this way even if Scotland did manage to become independent and get ride of all nuclear weapons from its borders it wouldn't help it one jot if the day came that they needed to be used, meanwhile it would still benefit from have a nuclear power and large conventional weapons user as a neighbour. The reality is an independent Scotland would never be able to defend its own borders give the sheer geographical size of them so it would always be reliant on its larger neighbour being there just in case. Given that an independent Scotland would have to be agreeable to nuclear weapons to be able to join NATO its a bit of a non argument. Who would want to live in a virtually defenceless country totally reliant on the goodwill of its neighbours for protection.

just goes to show that the unionist flag wavers no Nothing about Nuclear Weapons ,for us folk that have worked on these systems,know that having them is just about the P-ssing competition that know one can ever win . Cameron is the type that he and his gang need as much help in that area as possible but they want you to pay for their enlargement . That's just the Tory and unionist way,they talk for helping those who are not as fortunate as them but really they are only happy when you are under their jackboot . Master and servant should be on the Tory flag ,along with English Masters ,Scots Servants, no room for better together.

BetterTogether
01-Nov-15, 18:42
It just happens the Trident system is up for renewal under a Conservative govt all previous govts have upheld our nuclear deterrent ever since they came into exsistence, so Labour, Liberal, Conservative.

I notice despite all your hyperbole you haven't provided a verifiable source for your earlier information, not that I expected you to. As per usual just more rhetoric without any substantiation you can warble on all you like about it but provide no proof you're posts become worthless and you begin to sound like a pub bore who knows everything about nothing.

I'd like to believe you're intelligent enough to work on nuclear weapons but the quality of your posts leaves me more inclined to believe maybe you do a far more basic job.
Im not normally one to be quite so dismissive but since when did being a minor part on the assembly of a weapon make you a key decision maker in defence strategy I'm struggling to see how the two can reconcile each other. It's bit like trying to say the man who makes tyres is capable of running am F1 team, so let's have a bit of reality here eh.

You're more than entitied to a political opinion but whether anyone takes any notice when you can't get past the tired very passé name calling of the 1950/60s makes you sound like a Sheridan throwback.

weeker2014
01-Nov-15, 19:59
So why should we pay to protect other countries with our weapons? Shouldnt they all be contributing to the cost if they are part of NATO. Or alternatively take it out of the hands of individual countries and all members contribute to a NATO controlled deterrent. Either way it will be a damn sight cheaper than 100 billion to the UK and may subside some of the fears that the UK has a deterrent where many other countries dont. I expect a shared NATO deterrent would be a lot more digestable.

Better Together you really do talk some crap. The title of the thread is "the real cost of Trident", nothing to do with the SNP. This was a UK wide thread. The minute I gave you a perfectly reasonable way of a work around you started ur SNP bashing as you could not possibly answer me.

Would appear we as a collective are far too smart for you and time after time u just have to go back to SNP bashing. You are nothing other than a troll who tries to inflame others and incapable of having an adult discussion. At least Rob puts some sense behind his posts.

andyw
01-Nov-15, 21:12
Look at all the jobs its keeping in Scotland for you LOL

weeker2014
01-Nov-15, 21:35
Better Together you really do talk some crap. The title of the thread is "the real cost of Trident", nothing to do with the SNP. This was a UK wide thread. The minute I gave you a perfectly reasonable way of a work around you started ur SNP bashing as you could not possibly answer me.

Would appear we as a collective are far too smart for you and time after time u just have to go back to SNP bashing. You are nothing other than a troll who tries to inflame others and incapable of having an adult discussion. At least Rob puts some sense behind his posts.

In addition judging by the vote at the Scottish Labour conference it is not only the SNP in Scotland who want rid of Trident so makes ur SNP bashing even more obscene.

weeker2014
01-Nov-15, 21:37
Look at all the jobs its keeping in Scotland for you LOL

Jobs in Scotland for who? I reckon with saving 100 Billion we could put a large chunk of money to creating more ethical jobs for all those currently employed in the nuclear defence industry, never mind the decommissioning of the existing subs.

BetterTogether
01-Nov-15, 23:15
Better Together you really do talk some crap. The title of the thread is "the real cost of Trident", nothing to do with the SNP. This was a UK wide thread. The minute I gave you a perfectly reasonable way of a work around you started ur SNP bashing as you could not possibly answer me.

Would appear we as a collective are far too smart for you and time after time u just have to go back to SNP bashing. You are nothing other than a troll who tries to inflame others and incapable of having an adult discussion. At least Rob puts some sense behind his posts.

Leaving aside your personal remarks which I shall treat with the utter contempt they deserve.

Would you care to point out where I've mentioned the SNP in this thread ? When you've reread the thread and not found me mention them you can just apply the Troll moniker to yourself and feel rather foolish.

You can now sit back and relish your collective stupidity.

weeker2014
02-Nov-15, 00:08
Leaving aside your personal remarks which I shall treat with the utter contempt they deserve.

Would you care to point out where I've mentioned the SNP in this thread ? When you've reread the thread and not found me mention them you can just apply the Troll moniker to yourself and feel rather foolish.

You can now sit back and relish your collective stupidity.

No not at all. Every time you mention "Independent Scotland" with the bile you spew we know exactly who you are aiming at. Sometimes it is a good idea to look at the big picture when you have hundreds of threads putting down the SNP. You have still not answered the original comment, nicely swerved. You have no evidence to back up your troll bile as per usual.

BetterTogether
02-Nov-15, 00:26
No not at all. Every time you mention "Independent Scotland" with the bile you spew we know exactly who you are aiming at. Sometimes it is a good idea to look at the big picture when you have hundreds of threads putting down the SNP. You have still not answered the original comment, nicely swerved. You have no evidence to back up your troll bile as per usual.

So in your mind there's an assumption that I consider if an independent Scotland where to occur it could only ever possibly be governed by the SNP that says an awful lot more about your mentality than it does mine. You've taken a mention of a potential independent Scotland scenario and let forth your rabid bile spew regardless of what's actually been said as for hundreds of threads that shows your tendency to exaggeration.

You then have the mendacity to call people trolls !

In answer to your first question every member of NATO does contribute to the whole so the costs are spread dependant on that nations capabilities and individual requirements.

If you need to ask why Countries have military allegiances then it shows how little a grasp on the reality of defence you have.

Not everyone has nuclear weapons and I for one am happier that is the case.

weezer 316
03-Nov-15, 13:43
Jobs in Scotland for who? I reckon with saving 100 Billion we could put a large chunk of money to creating more ethical jobs for all those currently employed in the nuclear defence industry, never mind the decommissioning of the existing subs.

£100bn over the 40 year lifespan of the thing. Averages out at just over £2bn a year. I am no nuke fan but whinging about its cost is a bit absurd. We pay out double that a year on just winter fuel payments. Think about that for a minute.

If the SNP, or any anti-nuke folk can point to what the thousands of folks who work in Faslane do with those skills that might be a start. Until then I see it as not a very important issue and given the clear support for these right across the UK, I dont see that changing.

rob murray
03-Nov-15, 17:21
Better Together you really do talk some crap. The title of the thread is "the real cost of Trident", nothing to do with the SNP. This was a UK wide thread. The minute I gave you a perfectly reasonable way of a work around you started ur SNP bashing as you could not possibly answer me.

Would appear we as a collective are far too smart for you and time after time u just have to go back to SNP bashing. You are nothing other than a troll who tries to inflame others and incapable of having an adult discussion. At least Rob puts some sense behind his posts.

THanks mate, was reading the general threads about a lack of "trouble makers" on the org and came across this "it seems SNP supporters have gone in droves and it is the crazed cyberunionists that are left"....says it all really, Im by no means pro SNP but as they are the government I feel that they should be judged on their record and in a democracy thats what you do if your bothered...so it seems that in doing so your labelled a a crazed cyberunionist. I dont see any point now in contributing to the org / politics so I wont. Ta ta, thanks for your contributions

weezer 316
03-Nov-15, 17:54
THanks mate, was reading the general threads about a lack of "trouble makers" on the org and came across this "it seems SNP supporters have gone in droves and it is the crazed cyberunionists that are left"....says it all really, Im by no means pro SNP but as they are the government I feel that they should be judged on their record and in a democracy thats what you do if your bothered...so it seems that in doing so your labelled a a crazed cyberunionist. I dont see any point now in contributing to the org / politics so I wont. Ta ta, thanks for your contributions

You're fine Rob. BT could be David Cameron given his adherence to tory party lines so don't class yourself like that. You're more like me.

BetterTogether
03-Nov-15, 18:32
You're fine Rob. BT could be David Cameron given his adherence to tory party lines so don't class yourself like that. You're more like me.
Aww you say the sweetest things I feel a special bond now you can call me Gideon :)

Alrock
03-Nov-15, 19:16
I wonder just how many of those who like to fall back to the "Think about the jobs" argument to defend replacing Trident where on the side of the Miners back in the Eighties when Maggie was shutting down pit after pit with scant regard to the welfare of the Miners losing their jobs?

golach
03-Nov-15, 19:34
I wonder just how many of those who like to fall back to the "Think about the jobs" argument to defend replacing Trident where on the side of the Miners back in the Eighties when Maggie was shutting down pit after pit with scant regard to the welfare of the Miners losing their jobs?
Throwing lumps of coal will not defend the UK, the threat of Trident will.

cptdodger
03-Nov-15, 19:53
THanks mate, was reading the general threads about a lack of "trouble makers" on the org and came across this "it seems SNP supporters have gone in droves and it is the crazed cyberunionists that are left"....says it all really, Im by no means pro SNP but as they are the government I feel that they should be judged on their record and in a democracy thats what you do if your bothered...so it seems that in doing so your labelled a a crazed cyberunionist. I dont see any point now in contributing to the org / politics so I wont. Ta ta, thanks for your contributions

That's a shame Rob, they do like their name calling and branding of everybody that is not a Yes voter, or SNP supporter, or is that one in the same ? !!