Trident, HS2 is it all worth it?

Would you scrap Trident and HS2 to save £293 Billion

  • Yes to scrap Trident but not HS2

    Votes: 4 3.6%
  • Yes to scrap HS2 but not Trident

    Votes: 70 63.6%
  • Yes to scrap both

    Votes: 7 6.4%
  • Keep both

    Votes: 29 26.4%

  • Total voters
    110
I have deliberately posted this here instead of in the General Election 2019 thread because of all the tit for tat bitching between certain members of Arrse, (you all know who they are)

So according to the news headlines I read on the Victoria Derbyshire Programme this morning, the Labour Party have decided that they need to change tactics for the remaining two weeks of the election. Other news headlines telling me that according to the latest polls the Conservative Party have gained a significant lead, and could win the election with as many as a 60 seat majority.

Yet according to the IFS report today, the spending figures promised by both the Labour Party and the Conservatives do not add up or make any sense. It is a physical impossibility to conjure up the amount of money the campaigns are promising.

So It is all just smoke and mirrors?

Or will the cash be found by either :-

a) Scrapping The Trident Missile Defence Programme at a cost of £205 Billion


Or

b) Scrapping The HS2 Rail Network where costs have risen to £88 Billion (a rise of 30 Billion)


Or

c) Both of the above giving a grand total of £293 Billion.

Imagine what could be done with that amount of money.

So the serious question folks, is the deterrent of having the Trident Missile system worth spending £205 Bn, or are the benefits of having a High Speed Rail network costing £88 Bn worth the money?
 
Was thinking about starting a thread on Trident; its a decent subject to discuss, to say the least.

Do we really, really need it?
If so, why? If we have a "No first strike" policy, why worry about revenge?
We are part of NATO and could benefit from the US umbrella

It does, however give us a seat at the Big Table given we've had CASD for >50 years now, with all the bragging rights that brings.
 
If HS2 was truly about distribution of wealth and linking into the 'Northern powerhouse' it'd have been started in the North and headed south. Not where the senior types wouldn't find it difficult to reach the West End if they chose to see how things are progressing once in a while.
 
I’ve always thought HS 2 a waste, its a foley. Traveling up and down on a train is a waste of time, time being money, technology exists to conduct meetings via video conferencing. Any time saved will soon be eaten up as they introduces more stops to generate greater revenue.

International businesses are not interested in anything outside London, fast tracks to Manchester etc is pointless.

Ive always seen trident as a projection of our power, it’s a ticket to the big boys table. It’s foolish to try and hide under the protection of the US or any other umbrella for that matter.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Was thinking about starting a thread on Trident; its a decent subject to discuss, to say the least.

Do we really, really need it?
If so, why? If we have a "No first strike" policy, why worry about revenge?
We are part of NATO and could benefit from the US umbrella

It does, however give us a seat at the Big Table given we've had CASD for >50 years now, with all the bragging rights that brings.
If JC gets in, I wouldn’t count to much on the American umbrella to protect the U.K. . I would imagine our military cooperation would nose dive.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
I mentioned this on some thread about scrapping HS2 and spending that money on our infrastructure. We have terrible floods that are getting more and more frequent, we should be doing more to prevent these floods.
 
I mentioned this on some thread about scrapping HS2 and spending that money on our infrastructure. We have terrible floods that are getting more and more frequent, we should be doing more to prevent these floods.
Agreed. As long as we continue to ignore the causes, continue to fail the management of water, many people will suffer all over the country, much more than those who would feel deprived by not having HS2.
 
Was thinking about starting a thread on Trident; its a decent subject to discuss, to say the least.

Do we really, really need it?
If so, why? If we have a "No first strike" policy, why worry about revenge?
We are part of NATO and could benefit from the US umbrella

It does, however give us a seat at the Big Table given we've had CASD for >50 years now, with all the bragging rights that brings.
Agreed re the 'No First Strike' policy. If someone else has already pressed the button, it won't just be us the missiles are aimed at. I am sort of okay with so called civilised countries having a Nuclear Deterrent. But I am not enamoured by the fact that countries such as Iraq, North Korea etc having a Nuclear capability. Press first, ask questions later is not a policy I am comfortable with.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I mentioned this on some thread about scrapping HS2 and spending that money on our infrastructure. We have terrible floods that are getting more and more frequent, we should be doing more to prevent these floods.
It's also true that a lot of good could be improved by improving east-west links in the north of England, rather than concentrating on north-south.

My worry is that HS2 is too big politically to be allowed to fail.
 
Trident is absolutely indispensable to our national security in an era of growing Russian threat and shrinking American relevance.

HS2 is a total and utter, scandalous waste of money and anyone within the HoC who has not stood against it should be ******* jailed.
 

DAS

Old-Salt
Use trident up north then HS2 won't be necessary. Simples.
 
Was thinking about starting a thread on Trident; its a decent subject to discuss, to say the least.

Do we really, really need it?
If so, why? If we have a "No first strike" policy, why worry about revenge?
We are part of NATO and could benefit from the US umbrella

It does, however give us a seat at the Big Table given we've had CASD for >50 years now, with all the bragging rights that brings.
the way I see Trident is “if that 6%* of the MOD budget was freed up, would the money still go to defence, and would a 6, 10 or even 15 or 25% bigger army/navy/air force really offer us the type of deterrent effect, global reach or political clout that Nukes do“ - and I simply don’t think it would

* 6%: What is the cost of running Trident?

saying that, I think we could happily replace it with nuclear tipped tomahawks in both SLCM and GLCM configuration for a fraction of the cost and retain 99% of the deterrent effect and political clout - for very little real loss in global reach (could be launched by more submarines for a start)
 
Last edited:
I don't get HS2 at all. I seriously doubt it's raison d'etre. Ok it's a speedy link to the north that cuts a whole twenty minutes off the current time for people but goods will still use the exsisting west line but not at any appreciably higher amount. High spreed train projects seem to be the "shiny" national project around the world, even the USA have one planned but...
A better rail link between east and west "T'north" though would be a good idea though.
As regards Trident I firmly believe this country needs the biggest f,off stick we can afford and remember deterrent's not for Christmas it's for life.
 
the way I see Trident is “if that 6%* of the MOD budget was freed up, would the money still go to defence, and would a 6, 10 or even 15 or 25% bigger army/navy/air force really offer us the type of deterrent effect, global reach or political clout that Nukes do“ - and I simply don’t think it would

* 6%: What is the cost of running Trident?

saying that, I think we could happily replace it with nuclear tipped tomahawks in both SLCM and GLCM configuration for a fraction of the cost and retain 99% of the deterrent effect and political clout - for very little real loss in global reach (could be launched by more submarines for a start)
If the funding for Trident was cut, it would be poured into that bottomless pit labelled "NHS", never to be seen again and for zero effect.
 
Regards HS2, the money would be better spent reopening the Beeching lines and focusing rail development on local/regional travel and freight transport rather than high speed intercity travel.

whole new series of local distribution depots with bulk transport done by rail, for last leg delivery by (green) vans (& cargo bikes in urban areas)
 
Last edited:

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
I think Trident is worth the expense partly due to the huge tail behind it of decent paying jobs in non-SE towns (Plymouth, Barrow, Helensbourgh etc) along with the stimulous in science and technology research, not just at AWE.
 
If so, why? If we have a "No first strike" policy, why worry about revenge?
I always though that was the case - and perhaps it was or is regarding nation states- but at the last election it was certainly implied that the UK could launch a pre-emptive (limited? ) strike to prevent a definite WMD attack on the UK.

TM refused to be drawn on exactly what circumstances she would consider that an option - sensibly the whole point is nobody knows where lines are drawn.
Corbyn said he would never use it and Abbott well Abbot did the usual attempted to answer a different question say Piers Piers Piers - what im talking about is - and refuse to answer until they gave up and ended the interview.

Nobody asked the Lib dems - but lets be honest at the last GE there was more chance of me being elected PM than them
 

Yokel

LE
the way I see Trident is “if that 6%* of the MOD budget was freed up, would the money still go to defence, and would a 6, 10 or even 15 or 25% bigger army/navy/air force really offer us the type of deterrent effect, global reach or political clout that Nukes do“ - and I simply don’t think it would

* 6%: What is the cost of running Trident?

saying that, I think we could happily replace it with nuclear tipped tomahawks in both SLCM and GLCM configuration for a fraction of the cost and retain 99% of the deterrent effect and political clout - for very little real loss in global reach (could be launched by more submarines for a start)
It could be argued that Continuous At Sea Deterrence is the UK's most important contribution to NATO. Amongst other things, it helps link the United States (and Canada) from being decoupled from the European NATO nations. As this has long been an objective of NATO's opponents, some in Moscow will aide the SNP.

Nuclear tipped Tomahawks would mean buying new missiles, and designing a new warhead for them. GLCM - forget it. Also we will have seven SSNs, the bulk of the cost associated with Trident come from the four SSBNs. Giving a nuclear role to the SSNs will compromise their ability to perform their normal roles - including supporting task group operations and (conventional) TLAM strike.

Where does the £200 Billion figure come from anyway?
 
Cruise missiles do not a deterrent make, as discussed and nauseum on the deterrent thread.

HS2 is not just about speed of transit but also network capacity, which is actually pretty tight as is. Yes it's expensive, but any infrastructure project of any scale is eye-watering these days. It's not so much the actual project itself but the endless indecision and second guessing that passes for public policy these days.

Under no circumstances should any of that capital investment money be let anywhere near the insatiable maw of the NHS. HS2 is a once in a lifetime opportunity to put real infrastructure in place and should not be missed. It should also be extended to include the East/West links referred to by others.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top