Trident

[Yaya_Tony]

The ideal would be no nuclear weapons for any cunts, but we as a nation need them to scare other motherfuckers who wish us harm. So long as Boris and Trump don't get their fingers on the button. That's unreliable.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Apparently we need four of them to ensure at least one is in the water at any given time.

25% utilisation just doesn't sound very efficient. By the time we build these things, the technology is years out of date - like the damn Space Shuttle operating on 60's technology.

I think we need a deterrent, but I think there must be some smarter / more efficient alternative.

And we shouldn't forget that we managed to get two nuclear subs to collide in the Middle of the Atlantic in 2009! - the RNA said 'it was a one in a million freak occurrence'

 

[FanchesterCity]

It's biological weapons that scare me more. Arguably easier to develop and certainly easier to deploy.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

Apparently we went to the moon on less than bbc basic tech!! There is more power in my android phone than what could put us in space!!

 

[Len Rum]

They do the maintenance of the current Vanguard Class at Devonport near Plymouth so that's a possibility.
The licence at BAE at Barrow is odd in that it allows nuclear subs to be built there but they can't return once commissioned. - Or at least that was the case a few years ago.

Both options very costly.
Walney is too shallow (Barrow).
Plymouth can't replace Coulport.
Both near large centers of population ( UK reg authority).

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

To make nuclear attacks against us an unwinnable proposition.

Suppose ISIS or Al Qaeda detonate a dirty device in the centre of London. Who are we going to aim the warheads at? Nuclear weapons offer no defence against the threats we now face, such as terrorism and cyber warfare. The money we're going to spend would be much more effective going to the intelligence services and ensuring we have an adequate mobile response force.

 

[andyhinch]

Suppose ISIS or Al Qaeda detonate a dirty device in the centre of London. Who are we going to aim the warheads at? Nuclear weapons offer no defence against the threats we now face, such as terrorism and cyber warfare. The money we're going to spend would be much more effective going to the intelligence services and ensuring we have an adequate mobile response force.

I think you can be fairly confident the cost will go up by a minimum of 50% I've done some design work on the Vangaurd class subs, the MOD like to design by comity they make BNFL look like a well oiled machine, something I can assure you they're not.

 

[BobKowalski]

A 20th Century Cold War weapon system which has little relevance to the threats we face today. Investing in conventional weapons and troops, intelligence gathering etc would be better use of the money. Trident is a vanity statement. It plays well in the media and doesn't require any hard thinking about future threats. Voting for it was the easy and politically safe option.

Also anyone who can glibly state they would slaughter 100,000 people without a second thought is either an idiot or a homicidal raving lunatic.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Apparently we need four of them to ensure at least one is in the water at any given time.

25% utilisation just doesn't sound very efficient. By the time we build these things, the technology is years out of date - like the damn Space Shuttle operating on 60's technology.

I think we need a deterrent, but I think there must be some smarter / more efficient alternative.

And we shouldn't forget that we managed to get two nuclear subs to collide in the Middle of the Atlantic in 2009! - the RNA said 'it was a one in a million freak occurrence'

4 boats are required to allow for the fact that one maybe 2 can be being fixed.
- One undergoing full refit (1 year out every 4 years).
- One going to/returning from station.
- One on station.
- One broken / in dock / on station in time of crisis.
We only have about 2.5 crews at the moment.

 

[BlueAnorak]

A 20th Century Cold War weapon system which has little relevance to the threats we face today. Investing in conventional weapons and troops, intelligence gathering etc would be better use of the money. Trident is a vanity statement. It plays well in the media and doesn't require any hard thinking about future threats. Voting for it was the easy and politically safe option.

Also anyone who can glibly state they would slaughter 100,000 people without a second thought is either an idiot or a homicidal raving lunatic.

Seriously? Russia is more dangerous today that it has been since the late 1970s. Then there is China who are not the tame dragon many seem to think. Then you have Pakistan, North Korea and others.
The Russians actually intend to use Nukes tactically in their current battle plans.

ICBMs may bot be the correct solution with Modern anti missile tech. But subs as the launch platform still works, though firing long range cruise missiles (or other more exotic tech) could be much cheaper and more effective.