Author Topic: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?  (Read 23514 times)

Offline The 5th Benitle

  • Mitch Fenner and Gerry Francis' biggest fan. Karaoke James - The Sausagefest Superhero. A soldier not a Capo di tutti capi. Clapham Stalker. RAWK X Factor Winner 2011. The poor man's Sarge!
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 45,307
  • Read, then post...
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #200 on: March 18, 2007, 09:32:06 pm »
I've got a clear conscience.

Do you?
Yep.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that 5th B has never nuked anyone in his life.
No, you're correct there mate!

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #201 on: March 18, 2007, 09:43:39 pm »
Yep.No, you're correct there mate!

Yeah yeah your rasta Homers fooling no one.....
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #202 on: March 19, 2007, 05:14:17 am »
Does it make you proud that you're part of Blair's private and personal army.

I'm part of Blair's fuck all - I wear the Queen's Crown on my capbadge and I swore allegience to her, not any fucking politician.

Invent something better for penetrating tanks that won't increase the possibility of cancer and we can use it instead.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline kesey

  • Hippy - Scally - Taoist - Rafiki - Dad - Trichotomist. Hill Climber, David Cassidy Fan Club
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,925
  • Truth , Love and Simplicity ♡
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #203 on: March 19, 2007, 05:21:35 am »
My bosses have told me nothing.



Then what makes you go to places like Iraq ?

He who sees himself in all beings and all beings in himself loses all fear.

- The Upanishads.

The heart knows the way. Run in that direction

- Rumi

You are held . You are loved . You are seen  - Some wise fella .

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #204 on: March 19, 2007, 05:24:31 am »

Then what makes you go to places like Iraq ?



I turn up at Brize Norton on the off chance, like last minute cancellations on Teletext
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline kesey

  • Hippy - Scally - Taoist - Rafiki - Dad - Trichotomist. Hill Climber, David Cassidy Fan Club
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,925
  • Truth , Love and Simplicity ♡
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #205 on: March 19, 2007, 05:30:21 am »
I turn up at Brize Norton on the off chance, like last minute cancellations on Teletext


Like the rest of the hired killers.


There's room at the top they are telling you still but first you must learn how to smile when you kill.....
He who sees himself in all beings and all beings in himself loses all fear.

- The Upanishads.

The heart knows the way. Run in that direction

- Rumi

You are held . You are loved . You are seen  - Some wise fella .

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #206 on: March 19, 2007, 05:44:01 am »
Like the rest of the hired killers.

Nah, they get the early deals on easyjet, cheaper that way.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline kopite@m45

  • A frightening peek inside the mind of a Tory voter... fuck me its roomy in here
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Mo mo mo, Mo Sissoko
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #207 on: March 19, 2007, 06:11:05 pm »
Will Kesey be the saviour of this Country when the guns begin to shoot ?
A legendary dickhead, no less.

Offline Commie Bobbie

  • Just woke up......Member of the Committee for State Security. More Folkestone Fashionista than Sandon Sandanista......
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,573
  • #WTRWWAW
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #208 on: March 19, 2007, 06:13:59 pm »
Will Kesey be the saviour of this Country when the guns begin to shoot ?

Diplomacy is such a great word.
Twitter: @atypicalbob

DON'T BUY THE S*N

MacKenzie Is Still A Fucking c*nt

Offline kopite@m45

  • A frightening peek inside the mind of a Tory voter... fuck me its roomy in here
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Mo mo mo, Mo Sissoko
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #209 on: March 19, 2007, 07:43:50 pm »
Unfortunately when dealing with a lot of dictators, it's 9 letters too long.
A legendary dickhead, no less.

Offline Byrnee

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,746
  • Liverpool are Magic, Everton are Tragic
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #210 on: March 20, 2007, 03:37:38 pm »
Listen, forget these nukes, whenever there's a problem, give Jack Bauer a call and we'll all be fine!
'Liverpool was made for me and I was made for Liverpool.'
Bill Shankly


*    *   *   *   *   *   *   *    *    *   *   *    *   *   *   *   *    *    *
01 06 22 23 47 64 66 73 76 77 79 80 82 83 84 86 88 90 20


*   *    *    *   *   *   
77 78 81 84 05 19


At The End Of The Storm I

Offline kopite@m45

  • A frightening peek inside the mind of a Tory voter... fuck me its roomy in here
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Mo mo mo, Mo Sissoko
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #211 on: March 20, 2007, 06:42:56 pm »
Jack who ? Sorry have I missed something here ? Is he a pop star ?
A legendary dickhead, no less.

Offline Rigga

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,243
  • JFT96
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #212 on: March 4, 2010, 02:22:30 pm »
Just received this from my local MP after asking him about the future of Trident should the Tories get in:

Quote

Re: Nuclear Weapons Convention and Trident

Thank you for your recent email regarding the above subjects.

Conservatives are utterly committed to making next year's Non-Proliferation Treaty review a success.  William Hague has spoken on a number of occasions about the critical importance of the review and his fear that if it were to fail or be seen to have been a failure, it would in practice present a green light to other nations with regard to starting to develop nuclear weapons programmes of their own.

I would like to see the parties to the treaty set themselves a number of objectives next year.  One should be to strengthen the inspectorate by, for example, making the additional protocol, with its provision for unannounced inspections, mandatory for all signatories to the treaty.  Another should be to make it easier for action to be taken against violations of the treaty or defiance of the IAEA.  For example, there might be provision for automatic reference to the Security Council if a country acted in the way that Iran has done, having withdrawn from the additional protocol after originally subscribing to it.

Britain has already taken significant recent steps towards fulfilling its obligations under the NPT.  Since the end of the Cold War, Britain has reduced its stockpile of nuclear weapons by around 75%, so that we currently have only around 160 such weapons operationally available.  The WE-117 free fall nuclear bombs (dropped by Tornado aircraft) were withdrawn in March 1998.  The UK has the smallest stockpile of nuclear warheads amongst the nuclear weapon states recognised under the NPT, and is the only one to have reduced to a single deterrent system.  In addition to this, Britain signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996 which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons.

The NPT has been the cornerstone of world security for 40 years.  Conservatives call on our Government, ahead of the crucial review conference of the non-proliferation treaty of 2010, to build now the international consensus to make far harder the illicit production of nuclear weapons and the trading of their components.  This, looking ahead, is one of the great global challenges, a challenge to which the next Conservative Government will rise.

However, we live in a nuclear world and I do not think that we have the right to gamble and to play fast and loose with the security of future generations.  Therefore, I believe that it is a strategic imperative that we maintain, update and replace our independent nuclear deterrent.  Conservatives remain committed to replacing Trident and maintaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent as we believe that we must deal with the world as it is and not as we wish it were.

No one can accurately predict the threats that the UK will face between 2025 and 2055 - when the next generation of the deterrent will be in service - just as no one 20 years ago could have anticipated the collapse of the Sviet Union, or the nature of the conflicts which currently confront us.  Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented and they will remain part of the international security picture in the future.  The acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea and their attempted acquisition by Iran are real threats to our security.

Please be assured though, we are reviewing all Government programmes to make sure they give value for money, something which is especially important in this financial climate.

If you wish to comment on this matter or any other pleas do not hesitate to contact me in due course.

Every best wish

Henry Bellingham MP


Whilst I'm thinking how/if to reply, I was hoping I could get the thoughts of my fellow Rawkites, 3 years on from the original discussion here.

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #213 on: March 4, 2010, 03:19:58 pm »
....I was hoping I could get the thoughts of my fellow Rawkites, 3 years on from the original discussion here.

Rigga, just some quick random thoughts.

It doesn't have to be renewed. There is evidence that the existing system could be life extended for considerably less and yet still remain as credible as what we currently have... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_replacement_of_the_Trident_system

I perfectly understood the rationale while the Cold war was on, but I personally now think the time has come when the UK should set a lead and renounce them and for a few reasons.

Since we have a no first use policy, that means we would(hopefully) only ever use them in retaliation for a nuclear strike on the UK.
Well frankly, if there is a nuclear strike on the UK, I think we'll all have other far more important things to worry about than laying waste to some far off distant land in revenge and the collateral damage to neighbouring states that would cause. It was estimated that perhaps as few as 6x2Mt airbursts would pretty much destroy the UK as a functioning society that we would recognise and probably lead directly or indirectly to the deaths of 80% or more of the population. If it is that scale of attack or greater on the UK, there is probably little hope left for the rest of humanity anyway which leaves us with their only use as a simple revenge weapon against a rogue state or terrorist organisation somehow setting off a device here in the UK, in which case why not revert to simple freefall bombs or cruise missiles. Morality aside, it would be so much cheaper and just as effective and allow us to spend more wisely and perhaps even to have more attack submarines which are possibly much more useful at protecting trade.

Additionally, I think the cost of any replacement for the Trident deterrent will seriously limit equipping our conventional forces with adequate tools to do their job effectively and thus minimising loss of life in times of conflict.
As it is, I suspect that the ring fencing of the submarine deterrent is already going to have a deleterious effect on the Aircraft carriers, which I suspect will be delayed in coming into service and then be wholly inadequately equipped with effective attack and defence systems for the task they are meant to do. I fear they will be the largest and most expensive UAV launching platforms and old helicopter parking areas made from eggshells we have ever had and quite possibly unfit for their original intent unless accompanied by the US navy.

Renouncing Nuclear weapons would also perhaps set a precedent for a more civilised world.
I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline Rigga

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,243
  • JFT96
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #214 on: March 4, 2010, 03:26:45 pm »
Quote
Since we have a no first use policy, that means we would(hopefully) only ever use them in retaliation for a nuclear strike on the UK.
Well frankly, if there is a nuclear strike on the UK, I think we'll all have other far more important things to worry about than laying waste to some far off distant land in revenge and the collateral damage to neighbouring states that would cause.

Cheers Gulleysucker, that sums up the line I was thinking along.

Offline Dr Cornwallis

  • Ministry of Scilly Talks :)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,132
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #215 on: March 4, 2010, 04:09:19 pm »
This is my first concern...


The UK has relied on the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) and, in later years, Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites for warning of a nuclear attack. Both of these systems are owned and controlled by the United States, although the UK has joint control over UK based systems. One of the four component radars for the BMEWS is based at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire.

In 2003 the UK government stated that it will consent to a request from the US to upgrade the radar at Fylingdales for use in the US National Missile Defense system.[20]


I mean, that's just a bit too open to tampering, if the US want an ally then what's to stop them doctoring the programme to make a threat look a bit more advanced than it actually is?


And on the subject of Trident and a possible replacement, it's just useless.  £20bn?
America or Britain will not fire a nuclear weapon unless fired upon.  It used to be a different situation, we all know what happened in the past, but neither country is in a position to take the moral high-ground, as was the case in WW2.  We used a brutal weapon to counter an enemy who had done something brutal to us, but I do not see how a situation like Pearl Harbour could happen again, where an enemy nation could strike at the heart of a country without us knowing it was going to happen. 
Before you post a reminder picture of 9/11, it's not the same, it's not a country in conflict with another country, there isn't a huge target to smack back with a nuclear weapon.
So, if we're only ever going to be in a situation where we fire our missile AFTER they've fired theirs, then what's the point?  We're about to be melted, I don't give a fuck if our missile hits them in retaliation, it's not 'saving' us, it's vengeance, £20bn worth of vengeance.  Besides which, they can fire their nuke at MHNS Clyde and sink all the Vanguard's anyway?

I'd rather invest in a top drawer missile defence system, would surely just render all flying nuke's useless?

Offline Danny Boys Dad

  • Errol Flynn when he's had a few
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,082
  • Now listen here son
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #216 on: March 4, 2010, 04:12:39 pm »
Besides which, they can fire their nuke at MHNS Clyde and sink all the Vanguard's anyway?

There should be one of them out on patrol at any one time and nobody knows where that is, or that's the theory anyway.
Legacy fan

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #217 on: March 4, 2010, 05:47:14 pm »
So, if we're only ever going to be in a situation where we fire our missile AFTER they've fired theirs, then what's the point?

Because having the ability to fire one back is what stops other countries deciding to fire one at us.

Besides which, they can fire their nuke at MHNS Clyde and sink all the Vanguard's anyway?

There is a bomber on patrol 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Our subs are almost impossible to detect (I've read that they're even better than the US boats in that respect) and therefore retaliation is almost impossible to stop.

I'd rather invest in a top drawer missile defence system, would surely just render all flying nuke's useless?

No missile defence system is 100% perfect. I don't think any of them are even close to being perfect. And they probably cost as much as, if not more than, the Trident/Vanguard systems. And they're not as big a deterrent to others as the chance of being vapourised. And if a country really wanted to nuke us then they'd just launch loads of them and swamp the defence system.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline The 5th Benitle

  • Mitch Fenner and Gerry Francis' biggest fan. Karaoke James - The Sausagefest Superhero. A soldier not a Capo di tutti capi. Clapham Stalker. RAWK X Factor Winner 2011. The poor man's Sarge!
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 45,307
  • Read, then post...
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #218 on: March 4, 2010, 10:58:48 pm »
Interesting bump this, be good to see what the nukecomers think  :wave

Offline Terry de Niro

  • Cellar dweller fella, ya know
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,207
  • Are you talkin' to me or chewin' a brick?
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #219 on: March 4, 2010, 11:14:05 pm »
Interesting bump this, be good to see what the nukecomers think  :wave
They'll probably go ballistic.

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #220 on: October 25, 2015, 04:38:28 pm »
Bloody hell.

UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected

The overall cost of replacing and maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent will reach 167 billion pounds ($256 billion), much more than expected, according to a lawmaker's and Reuters' calculations based on official figures.

If the figure is confirmed, it is likely to spur critics who say Britain should not be committing to spending billions of pounds on defense at a time when they say deep cuts under the government's "austerity" policies are hurting families.

Some military officials also say the money would be better spent on maintaining the army and on more conventional technology, which have also faced cuts.

Until now, Prime Minister David Cameron's government has said replacing the ageing fleet of four submarines which carry nuclear warheads to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent would cost an estimated 15-20 billion pounds.

It has as yet given no official estimate of the cost of its replacement and maintenance.

Critics, who include the Scottish Nationalist Party which has campaigned for the Scotland-based Trident to be scrapped, have said Britain will need to spend 100 billion pounds, a figure based on a 2014 report by the independent Trident Commission.

In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds.

He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry.

"My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.

"The successor Trident program is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defense budget of its predecessor ... The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible."

His figure was based on a presumption that Britain will spend 2 percent of its annual gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, as Cameron's government has promised.

It also uses existing official government and International Monetary Fund figures, and an assumption of GDP growth of an annual average of 2.48 percent between 2020 and 2060.

Using the same figures, a Reuters calculation came to the same sum of 167 billion pounds.

Asked about the rising cost, a spokesperson for the British Ministry of Defense said the government had published an unclassified version of a review on alternatives to Trident which "demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable, or as cost-effective, as a Trident-based deterrent".

"At around 6 percent of the annual defense budget, the in-service costs of the UK's national deterrent ... are affordable and represent an investment in a capability which plays an important role in ensuring the UK's national security," the spokesperson said.

"MONSTER" PROJECT

The figures tally with comments this month by Jon Thompson, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defense, when he described the project to replace the nuclear deterrent as a "monster".

"That's the project that keeps me awake at night the most," he told parliament's Public Accounts Committee.

"It's the biggest project the Ministry of Defense is ever going to take on. If the government were to proceed with renewing the deterrent then in due course that would exceed 5 billion (pounds) a year. That is a significant proportion of the defense budget and it's an incredibly complicated area."

He added that it was extremely difficult to estimate what the future costs would be.

A final decision on replacing the four existing vessels carrying the Trident missiles -- four Vanguard-class submarines -- is due next year and Cameron has said he will press ahead with the renewal.

In August, the government said it would spend more than 500 million pounds refurbishing its Faslane naval base in Scotland.

"I think it is right to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent and anyone who has any doubts of it only has to look at the dangers and uncertainty in our world," Cameron told parliament on Wednesday.

In a speech last week, Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said global threats meant renewing Trident was vital.

"I appeal to all moderate MPs (lawmakers), to put our national security first and to support building four new Trident submarines," he said. "Spread across the 30-year life of the new boats, this represents an annual insurance premium of around 0.13 percent of total government spending."

The opposition Labour Party had also been a supporter of renewal but its new leader, far-left veteran lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn, an anti-war campaigner, is opposed to the plans.

He was widely quoted last month as saying he would not be prepared to use nuclear weapons if he became prime minister.

Spiraling costs are likely to reinforce Corbyn's opposition and possibly alarm many in his party who support renewal.

The nationalist SNP, which has warned it might seek another referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country, says the money could be better spent.

Its popularity has surged since Scots rejected independence in a vote last year, with millions of supporters won over by its anti-austerity message. It won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland in May's parliamentary election.

"The renewal of Trident is unjustified. It is unaffordable. It is immoral," SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon told her party's conference this month. "Be in no doubt. The SNP will stand against Trident - today, tomorrow and always."

http://linkis.com/www.reuters.com/arti/XkKEx
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 04:43:25 pm by Trada »
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Offline oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,352
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #221 on: October 25, 2015, 09:07:57 pm »
Bloody hell.

UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected

The overall cost of replacing and maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent will reach 167 billion pounds ($256 billion), much more than expected, according to a lawmaker's and Reuters' calculations based on official figures.

If the figure is confirmed, it is likely to spur critics who say Britain should not be committing to spending billions of pounds on defense at a time when they say deep cuts under the government's "austerity" policies are hurting families.

Some military officials also say the money would be better spent on maintaining the army and on more conventional technology, which have also faced cuts.

Until now, Prime Minister David Cameron's government has said replacing the ageing fleet of four submarines which carry nuclear warheads to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent would cost an estimated 15-20 billion pounds.

It has as yet given no official estimate of the cost of its replacement and maintenance.

Critics, who include the Scottish Nationalist Party which has campaigned for the Scotland-based Trident to be scrapped, have said Britain will need to spend 100 billion pounds, a figure based on a 2014 report by the independent Trident Commission.

In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds.

He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry.

"My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.

"The successor Trident program is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defense budget of its predecessor ... The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible."

His figure was based on a presumption that Britain will spend 2 percent of its annual gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, as Cameron's government has promised.

It also uses existing official government and International Monetary Fund figures, and an assumption of GDP growth of an annual average of 2.48 percent between 2020 and 2060.

Using the same figures, a Reuters calculation came to the same sum of 167 billion pounds.

Asked about the rising cost, a spokesperson for the British Ministry of Defense said the government had published an unclassified version of a review on alternatives to Trident which "demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable, or as cost-effective, as a Trident-based deterrent".

"At around 6 percent of the annual defense budget, the in-service costs of the UK's national deterrent ... are affordable and represent an investment in a capability which plays an important role in ensuring the UK's national security," the spokesperson said.

"MONSTER" PROJECT

The figures tally with comments this month by Jon Thompson, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defense, when he described the project to replace the nuclear deterrent as a "monster".

"That's the project that keeps me awake at night the most," he told parliament's Public Accounts Committee.

"It's the biggest project the Ministry of Defense is ever going to take on. If the government were to proceed with renewing the deterrent then in due course that would exceed 5 billion (pounds) a year. That is a significant proportion of the defense budget and it's an incredibly complicated area."

He added that it was extremely difficult to estimate what the future costs would be.

A final decision on replacing the four existing vessels carrying the Trident missiles -- four Vanguard-class submarines -- is due next year and Cameron has said he will press ahead with the renewal.

In August, the government said it would spend more than 500 million pounds refurbishing its Faslane naval base in Scotland.

"I think it is right to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent and anyone who has any doubts of it only has to look at the dangers and uncertainty in our world," Cameron told parliament on Wednesday.

In a speech last week, Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said global threats meant renewing Trident was vital.

"I appeal to all moderate MPs (lawmakers), to put our national security first and to support building four new Trident submarines," he said. "Spread across the 30-year life of the new boats, this represents an annual insurance premium of around 0.13 percent of total government spending."

The opposition Labour Party had also been a supporter of renewal but its new leader, far-left veteran lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn, an anti-war campaigner, is opposed to the plans.

He was widely quoted last month as saying he would not be prepared to use nuclear weapons if he became prime minister.

Spiraling costs are likely to reinforce Corbyn's opposition and possibly alarm many in his party who support renewal.

The nationalist SNP, which has warned it might seek another referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country, says the money could be better spent.

Its popularity has surged since Scots rejected independence in a vote last year, with millions of supporters won over by its anti-austerity message. It won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland in May's parliamentary election.

"The renewal of Trident is unjustified. It is unaffordable. It is immoral," SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon told her party's conference this month. "Be in no doubt. The SNP will stand against Trident - today, tomorrow and always."

http://linkis.com/www.reuters.com/arti/XkKEx
This is the most dangerous combo. spend more on Nuclear missiles while cutting back on conventional forces and technology. recipe for a disaster. if you know you can't defend yourself with conventional forces your more likely to turn to Nuclear weapons.
Possibly even make them a part of your contingency plans.

It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #222 on: January 22, 2017, 08:25:46 am »
MoD 'confidence' in Trident after test 'malfunction'

The Sunday Times says an unarmed Trident missile fired from submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June veered off course towards the US.

The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons vote on the future of Trident.

The MoD did not give details of the test process but said it was a success.

In July, MPs backed the renewal of Trident by 472 votes to 117, approving the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.

According to the Sunday Times, it is expected that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon will be called to the Commons to answer questions from MPs.

Vengeance, one of the UK's four Vanguard-class submarines, returned to sea for trials in December 2015 after a £350m refit, which included the installation of new missile launch equipment and upgraded computer systems.

The Sunday Times says the cause of the test firing failure remains top secret but quotes a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.

The Trident II D5 missile, adds the paper, was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa.
'Come clean'

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said while the MoD has described the test as a success for the crew and the boat, it has not denied the report that the missile itself might have veered off course.

In the past the MoD has issued a press release and video of successful tests but its silence on this occasion has raised questions as to whether any fault was deliberately kept quiet ahead of the key vote, our correspondent added.

Labour former defence minister Kevan Jones has demanded an inquiry into the claims, telling the Sunday Times: "The UK's independent nuclear deterrent is a vital cornerstone for the nation's defence.

"Ministers should come clean if there are problems and there should be an urgent inquiry into what happened."

Labour's official policy is to support renewing the Trident system, but leader Jeremy Corbyn - a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons - wants to change the party's position and has launched a defence review to examine the issue.

A statement issued by both Downing St and the MoD says: "The capability and effectiveness of the Trident missile, should we ever need to employ it, is unquestionable.

"In June the Royal Navy conducted a routine unarmed Trident missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, as part of an operation which is designed to certify the submarine and its crew.

"Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified, allowing Vengeance to return into service. We have absolute confidence in our independent nuclear deterrent.

"We do not provide further details on submarine operations for obvious national security reasons."
What is Trident?

The Trident system was acquired by the Thatcher government in the early 1980s as a replacement for the Polaris missile system, which the UK had possessed since the 1960s.

Trident came into use in the 1990s. There are three parts to it - submarines, missiles and warheads. Although each component has years of use left, they cannot last indefinitely.

The current generation of four submarines would begin to end their working lives some time in the late 2020s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708823?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #223 on: January 22, 2017, 08:58:40 am »
MoD 'confidence' in Trident after test 'malfunction'

The Sunday Times says an unarmed Trident missile fired from submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June veered off course towards the US.

The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons vote on the future of Trident.

The MoD did not give details of the test process but said it was a success.

In July, MPs backed the renewal of Trident by 472 votes to 117, approving the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.

According to the Sunday Times, it is expected that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon will be called to the Commons to answer questions from MPs.

Vengeance, one of the UK's four Vanguard-class submarines, returned to sea for trials in December 2015 after a £350m refit, which included the installation of new missile launch equipment and upgraded computer systems.

The Sunday Times says the cause of the test firing failure remains top secret but quotes a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.

The Trident II D5 missile, adds the paper, was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa.
'Come clean'

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said while the MoD has described the test as a success for the crew and the boat, it has not denied the report that the missile itself might have veered off course.

In the past the MoD has issued a press release and video of successful tests but its silence on this occasion has raised questions as to whether any fault was deliberately kept quiet ahead of the key vote, our correspondent added.

Labour former defence minister Kevan Jones has demanded an inquiry into the claims, telling the Sunday Times: "The UK's independent nuclear deterrent is a vital cornerstone for the nation's defence.

"Ministers should come clean if there are problems and there should be an urgent inquiry into what happened."

Labour's official policy is to support renewing the Trident system, but leader Jeremy Corbyn - a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons - wants to change the party's position and has launched a defence review to examine the issue.

A statement issued by both Downing St and the MoD says: "The capability and effectiveness of the Trident missile, should we ever need to employ it, is unquestionable.

"In June the Royal Navy conducted a routine unarmed Trident missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, as part of an operation which is designed to certify the submarine and its crew.

"Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified, allowing Vengeance to return into service. We have absolute confidence in our independent nuclear deterrent.

"We do not provide further details on submarine operations for obvious national security reasons."
What is Trident?

The Trident system was acquired by the Thatcher government in the early 1980s as a replacement for the Polaris missile system, which the UK had possessed since the 1960s.

Trident came into use in the 1990s. There are three parts to it - submarines, missiles and warheads. Although each component has years of use left, they cannot last indefinitely.

The current generation of four submarines would begin to end their working lives some time in the late 2020s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708823?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

That reads like it was a test of the launch systems not the guidance system in the missile. Interesting but not particularly relevant to the debate.

And this is probably not a good time to be highlighting Corbyn's nuclear position with the by-election coming up.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #224 on: January 22, 2017, 10:06:56 am »
That reads like it was a test of the launch systems not the guidance system in the missile. Interesting but not particularly relevant to the debate.

And this is probably not a good time to be highlighting Corbyn's nuclear position with the by-election coming up.

I think Labour should be pushing it May, was totally on the ropes on Marr and wont answer the question if she knew even when asked about 4 times.
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,660
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #225 on: January 22, 2017, 12:05:36 pm »
I think Labour should be pushing it May, was totally on the ropes on Marr and wont answer the question if she knew even when asked about 4 times.

Oh no no no...

It's the ultimate toxic subject at the moment...

The leadership of the party want rid whilst most of the other MPs don't....  brining it up opens up a massive division in the party.

Secondly, it's toxic for the electorate.  Getting rid of trident really isn't popular with. The electorate (well, certainly not amongst the voters labour risks losing).

Alan's right, they should leave well clear...
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #226 on: January 22, 2017, 12:33:56 pm »
Anti-nuclear is not the best position when fighting a tricky by-election in a constituency dependent on nuclear industry. Trident whilst hugely expensive, is a fringe issue that will not provide massive electoral gains. The most fervent anti-Trident protesters are firmly on the left. It exposes divisions within Labour, whilst the Tories are unified on this. Brexit, economy, jobs, services - that is all Labour should talk about. Or even simpler how the Tories will make you poorer, and his the NHS will suffer. Pin the consequences of Hard Brexit on May and keep repeating it. Short term there may be a price, but if Labour warned of the dangers, they will reap the benefits when things do go wrong. It will almost certainly pay off before 2020.

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #227 on: January 22, 2017, 12:39:41 pm »
Oh no no no...

It's the ultimate toxic subject at the moment...

The leadership of the party want rid whilst most of the other MPs don't....  brining it up opens up a massive division in the party.

Secondly, it's toxic for the electorate.  Getting rid of trident really isn't popular with. The electorate (well, certainly not amongst the voters labour risks losing).

Alan's right, they should leave well clear...

But you tackle it because its the right thing to do.

Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,660
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #228 on: January 22, 2017, 12:42:09 pm »
But you tackle it because its the right thing to do.


I'm not questioning anyone's position on trident.  I'm just pointing out that it's political suicide right now.

“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline Lush is the best medicine...

  • FUCK THE POLICE - NWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 40,806
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #229 on: January 22, 2017, 12:44:55 pm »
Outside of a tiny group in the far left nobody else gives much of a fuck about nuclear weapons right now

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #230 on: January 22, 2017, 12:47:51 pm »
But you tackle it because its the right thing to do.

You are only in a position to tackle it if you win power. Focusing on Trident, an area where the Tories have an overwhelming electoral advantage to the exclusion of other areas where they are vulnerable makes it less likely that Labour will be able to enact anything. The media landscape is already tilted against Labour badly enough without persistent own goals.

It would also have been right to challenge aspects of the Castro and Chavez regimes, but pragmatism appears to have won out there.

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #231 on: January 22, 2017, 12:49:53 pm »
Outside of a tiny group in the far left nobody else gives much of a fuck about nuclear weapons right now

Well the ones under Trump's teeny tiny thumb are of far more pressing concern.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #232 on: January 22, 2017, 12:57:48 pm »
It's also bad strategy. Are you arguing that it's wrong on principle or that there may be problems with the guidance system? It was a launch test with an unarmed missile.

Just heard the questioning on the radio. Two things - it allowed May to get in a dig at Corbyn's anti-nuclear stance and pushing the issue will just give her more opportunities.

And how come the BBC had May 'on the ropes?' I thought the BBC was a Tory government mouthpiece?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 01:03:42 pm by Alan_X »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Dr. Beaker

  • Veo, to his mates. Shares 50% of his DNA with a banana. Would dearly love to strangle Frankengoose. Lo! Be he not ye Messiah, verily be he a child of questionable conduct in the eyes of Ye Holy Border Guards.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,742
  • I... think I am, therefore...I....maybe.
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #233 on: January 22, 2017, 01:40:34 pm »
I don't think Corbyn needs to do anything over this, there should be enough MP's queueing up to grill May over why she didn't disclose this stuff to the House. She must have known at the time otherwise she would have said, 'No' on one of the four times she was asked if she knew.
NAKED BOOBERY

Rile-Me costed L. Nee-Naw "The Child" Torrence the first jack the hat-trick since Eon Rush vs Accursed Toffos, many moons passed. Nee-Naw he could have done a concreted his palace in the pantyhose off the LibPole Gods...was not was for the invented intervention of Rile-Me whistler.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #234 on: January 22, 2017, 01:46:26 pm »
I don't think Corbyn needs to do anything over this, there should be enough MP's queueing up to grill May over why she didn't disclose this stuff to the House. She must have known at the time otherwise she would have said, 'No' on one of the four times she was asked if she knew.

It's a minor story. The answers are easy - "it was a routine test - no one was in danger - not necessary to comment and irrelevant to the Trident vote..." followed by some comment about Jeremy Corbyn.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline bigbonedrawky

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,322
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #235 on: January 22, 2017, 02:10:02 pm »
Trident missile goes off target... Nothing to see here, move along.

Q  What kind of sick fucker would openly boast about launching a missile that would kill over 100,000  innocent men, women and children ? 

A  A Prime Minister of the UK

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,618
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #236 on: January 22, 2017, 03:04:31 pm »
Easy for the Tories to spin this. They can say that the very fact the missile failed is evidence that we need to spend £££ upgrading it.

Online Banquo's Ghost

  • Macbeth's on repeat. To boldly split infinitives that lesser men would dare. To.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,471
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #237 on: January 22, 2017, 03:18:18 pm »
Well the ones under Trump's teeny tiny thumb are of far more pressing concern.

Pressing concern is damn right.  ;D
Be humble, for you are made of earth. Be noble, for you are made of stars.

Online filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,756
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #238 on: January 22, 2017, 05:57:49 pm »
But you tackle it because its the right thing to do.
If the leadership was focused on "the right thing to do" irrespective of popularity,  I don't think we'd be supporting invoking Article 50.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Trident: Should we renew/extend or not?
« Reply #239 on: January 22, 2017, 10:25:52 pm »
Trident missile goes off target... Nothing to see here, move along.

Q  What kind of sick fucker would openly boast about launching a missile that would kill over 100,000  innocent men, women and children ? 

A  A Prime Minister of the UK

Who openly boasted about it?
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.