Trident

[Prestwich_Blue]

That £1.75bn per year saved if we don't have Trident is the equivalent of the combined budget for MI5, MI6 & GCHQ.

Which is more effective - spending that money on something that never gets used (and if it is used them we're screwed) or spending additional money on resources that protect us every single day and may also protect us against situations that lead to use of nuclear weapons?

Don't take too long to think about it.

 

[FanchesterCity]

There is barely any money to be saved, the maintenance of the system falls within the defence budget. The actual outlay to build new submarines and the system itself which will cost billions will be spread over 35 years. If we had voted no last night we wouldn't suddenly have 60 billion to spend, we'd have 1/35th of that over the next 35 years which is about 1.75b a year saved.. That is a pretty paltry figure for an absolute last line of defence and deterrent.

Depends how you look at it - it's still money that MIGHT be better utilised in some other technology or service, and not many projects of that size come in on budget.
I more for it than against it, but becoming more sceptical of its worthiness.

 

[inbetween]

That £1.75bn per year saved if we don't have Trident is the equivalent of the combined budget for MI5, MI6 & GCHQ.

Which is more effective - spending that money on something that never gets used (and if it is used them we're screwed) or spending additional money on resources that protect us every single day and may also protect us against situations that lead to use of nuclear weapons?

Don't take too long to think about it.

The point is though that say we shifted that money elsewhere then one day MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may not exist as a result to tell the story. We cannot predict future threats and if we want to defend the country we have to be ready with the best technologies and weaponry available at any time. The only way we can ever ensure our defence is to pose an equal threat to any enemies who would see us harmed.

Personally I think 1.75bn a year is almost insignificant and saving it may help with the threats we have now but what about tomorrow?

 

[Kazzydeyna]

Russia may or may not be more dangerous I just don't see Trident as the answer. It is a poor use of money that could be spent elsewhere in countering global threats. Additionally we lease the missiles from America and they would never be used without American approval and if the US did approve it means missiles are already flying all over the place and our one sub will be irrelevant.

If Russia did anything it would be using conventional troops. If Russia used tactical nukes in Eastern Europe we still wouldn't use Trident. China isn't going to invade or attack us either. They could just buy us instead. N. Korea is a basket case and having Trident is no deterrent to a madman.

I am not philosophically opposed to Nuclear deterrent and the MAD concept. I just think Trident is poor value for money and is more about us trying stay relevant in a dick waving contest.

Is the correct answer. Great post.

 

[smudgedj]

.

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 was talking about a nuclear attack from one of the more belligerent countries not a terrorist attack.

 

[smudgedj]

That £1.75bn per year saved if we don't have Trident is the equivalent of the combined budget for MI5, MI6 & GCHQ.

Which is more effective - spending that money on something that never gets used (and if it is used them we're screwed) or spending additional money on resources that protect us every single day and may also protect us against situations that lead to use of nuclear weapons?

Don't take too long to think about it.

It`s a deterrent it`s been used every single day for more than 60 years.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

As somebody pointed out we lease the missiles from America. Thus we would NEVER be allowed to use them unless the use was in Americas national interest, in which case let America use their missiles. why should we deprive our public services of vital billions of pounds of funds in order to save America tax payers money?

We have just had a referendum to become an independent nation again, why not go the whole hog and actually become independent of the American defence secretary?

This is madness and all the more galling because we are only doing it to save the Americans money.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Russia may or may not be more dangerous I just don't see Trident as the answer. It is a poor use of money that could be spent elsewhere in countering global threats. Additionally we lease the missiles from America and they would never be used without American approval and if the US did approve it means missiles are already flying all over the place and our one sub will be irrelevant.

If Russia did anything it would be using conventional troops. If Russia used tactical nukes in Eastern Europe we still wouldn't use Trident. China isn't going to invade or attack us either. They could just buy us instead. N. Korea is a basket case and having Trident is no deterrent to a madman.

I am not philosophically opposed to Nuclear deterrent and the MAD concept. I just think Trident is poor value for money and is more about us trying stay relevant in a dick waving contest.

That is actually incorrect we own something like 60 warheads we just share them in a pool with the US so that maintenance can take place without us lacking any warheads

 

[FanchesterCity]

It`s a deterrent it`s been used every single day for more than 60 years.

Those without a deterrent haven't been nuked either.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Those without a deterrent haven't been nuked either.

Well there was 1 country but that was right at the beginning