Scrapping Trident nuclear missiles 'would save £83.5bn'

#3
when the rest of the world stop building them for some reason, and they are not required as a deterent in a world that see's the crusader as liable for all wrong doings, we vcan get rid of them, but until then please calculate the cost of london turning into glass ?
 
#4
Why not for once consider national security as a priority over the security of an easy life for those who can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning? How about that for a novelty?

Not going to hang around waiting for happen but it was a nice thought.
 
#5
Ok, I'm cool with that, as long as Social Security is binned first. That'll be costing nearly 200M in a year's time.
Agree'd, defending the Country instead of abused/increased welfare payments, oh hold on the abused, not needed payments for some only account for a small percentage.

Mind you the Social bill isn't a political football, all the amendments going threw the lords/commons is tangible evidence of that.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Those who think that the Treasury would allow the savings from scrapping a major programme to be spent elsewhere in defence would have another think coming.

And those who think a credible deterrent could be based on a much shorter range missile (and therefore a more detectable platform) have missed the whole point of the exercvise - the credibility is based on the utter inability of any enemy to interdict the platform.

Oh dear we've been over this SO often ever since we worked out that V-bombers with Blue Streak couldn't cut it because of the vulnerability in spite of dispersal arrangeents etc. Groundhog day again and again.
 
#9
£1.86 billion a year.
Its a bargain really. Take it off the EU contributions, sack a couple of nurses, I don't care, but Trident (and its replacement) is a bargain.
 
M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#11
How did I guess upon seeing the title that this would be a Guardian link? In other news scrapping the armed forces would save £33+ billion p.a. If the Guardian's position that is it's justified to scrapping things just because they are expensive I suppose it is time to start rounding up and shooting the needy. I bet those NHS hospitals would burn well too.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#12
Scrapping Trident does make sense, in a world like this where we have bent over backwards to support the USA its about time that they paid us back by either giving us shedloads of the stuff for free or covering our arses for free. Its not as if we can use the stuff without their say so, so why spaff money away on soggy rockets when we cant afford to put tanks out to play?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#13
And I wholeheartedly support pulling out of the Eu and sending all the visitors home so we can force our idle to do those jobs!
 
#14
Scrapping Trident does make sense, in a world like this where we have bent over backwards to support the USA its about time that they paid us back by either giving us shedloads of the stuff for free or covering our arses for free. Its not as if we can use the stuff without their say so, so why spaff money away on soggy rockets when we cant afford to put tanks out to play?
I think it should be a case of "use it or lose it". Next time Iran, N Korea or some jihadi shithole kick-off again, lets just mallet them properly with a big T instead of pissing around with whats left of our conventional forces. Bet that would make the world sit up and take notice that GB hasn't quite gone down the plughole yet....
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#15
I think it should be a case of "use it or lose it". Next time Iran, N Korea or some jihadi shithole kick-off again, lets just mallet them properly with a big T instead of pissing around with whats left of our conventional forces. Bet that would make the world sit up and take notice that GB hasn't quite gone down the plughole yet....
**** yes 100%
 
#16
I think it should be a case of "use it or lose it". Next time Iran, N Korea or some jihadi shithole kick-off again, lets just mallet them properly with a big T instead of pissing around with whats left of our conventional forces. Bet that would make the world sit up and take notice that GB hasn't quite gone down the plughole yet....
Not sure we have enough Trident's to cover all the potential targets.......
 
#17
FFS Have we not had umpteen reviews/studies all saying that, if we want a nuclear deterrent (and that's the big if), then nothing except a continous at sea, sub launched ballistic missile system meets the requiremnt
 
#19
Wasn't it last time this floated as an idea, I seem to recall, that the number being tossed around was about £100Bn So where'd the £17Bn go?
 
#20
The trouble is, such ideas are bandied around by people who've grown up in a world where Britain being invaded by a foreign army is absolutely unthinkable, and wars are fought in far off sandy places. But you only have to look at the carnage in the former Yugoslavia to realise wars can still happen in Europe. I know it looks like one big number on a balance sheet, but ballistic missile submarines are a bargain when you consider the amount that would have to be spent on conventional forces to achieve that sort of deterrence value. We'd need half a dozen aircraft carriers for starters . . . . WITH operational aircraft on them. And lots of tanks. A shitload of artillery. Tens of thousands more infantry. Yeah, I know, some people here won't see that as a bad thing, but my point is, going the non nuclear route is not going to be a money saving options. Because the French and the Germans are our allies now, right. And the Russians are just going to sit on their gas wealth and not want to press their influence wider..... Invading Britain is inconceivable - until somebody conceives of doing it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P Aviation 13
wingedmonkey Int Corps 65
Mr_C_Hinecap The Intelligence Cell 6

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top