FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > At a cost of 205 billion should the UK now scrap Trident
At a cost of 205 billion should the UK now scrap Trident
Jump to: Newest in thread
"It is estimated the refit of Trident is 205 billion is this a good investment in 2021 for the people of uk or is it time to stop and start decomishining.
I guess might cost more?"
You're using figures quoted by the CND.!
Anyway the CND produced these figures before the 2016 vote in Parliament in which the Bill was passed through by both Labour and Conservative MP's 472 to 117 to renew Trident.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is estimated the refit of Trident is 205 billion is this a good investment in 2021 for the people of uk or is it time to stop and start decomishining.
I guess might cost more?
You're using figures quoted by the CND.!
Anyway the CND produced these figures before the 2016 vote in Parliament in which the Bill was passed through by both Labour and Conservative MP's 472 to 117 to renew Trident.
"
I still say scrap it it's a pointless spend and will never be value for money.
I bet even the work will.be done out of the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What is it being “ refitted “ with ?
That’s the question to whether or not it’s worth it .. ..
There’s an awful lot of new stuff going on at the moment .. Hypersonic missiles that travel upto six times the speed of sound seem to be all the rage in the arms race at the moment ...
I agree with the uk being able to defend itself .. however if your keeping a Pekingese as a guard dog ? What’s the point , your obviously gonna need a bigger dog !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
Too many people think that the countries security comes for free it doesn't, the commitment to nato is 2% of gdp only the uk and Poland actually follow these rules thats why trump got the hump about Europe taking the piss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is estimated the refit of Trident is 205 billion is this a good investment in 2021 for the people of uk or is it time to stop and start decomishining.
I guess might cost more?
You're using figures quoted by the CND.!
Anyway the CND produced these figures before the 2016 vote in Parliament in which the Bill was passed through by both Labour and Conservative MP's 472 to 117 to renew Trident.
"
So what are the figures? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is estimated the refit of Trident is 205 billion is this a good investment in 2021 for the people of uk or is it time to stop and start decomishining.
I guess might cost more?
You're using figures quoted by the CND.!
Anyway the CND produced these figures before the 2016 vote in Parliament in which the Bill was passed through by both Labour and Conservative MP's 472 to 117 to renew Trident.
"
Yeah this is ancient news.
Most people didn't seem to care back then. I don't expect them to care now.
But of course this is a colossal amount of money. We could use it to offset the damage done by other things.
But it's not as simple as turning off trident and not spending the money. Decommissioning is a long process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
i'm sure the workers on the clyde would prefer the amount of jobs to be doubled for half the cost by building something more useful to the country rather than handing wads of cash over to the americans for a few out of date bombs that they have ultimate control over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is estimated the refit of Trident is 205 billion is this a good investment in 2021 for the people of uk or is it time to stop and start decomishining.
I guess might cost more?"
It's not a refit it's replacement with new submarines.
Spend will be over about 15 years by the time they enter service.
(I got that from the Daily Mail Lionel)  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Bit more to this whole area
Nuclear weapons are important for international willy waving contests, you don't have nukes, you are at best a second rate power.
The UK's power and authority has been diminished by brexit, so it needs something to say "look at us, we are HARD, don't mess with us".
So expect the arch willy waver Bozo to push hard for nukes.
Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned hypersonic missiles.
These are not strategic weapons, they are not the same as a ballistic nuke. The ballistic nuke, by definition is a hypersonic weapon, typical speed Mach 25.
The hypersonic missile is great for theatre wide operations, you can drop a hypersonic missile into an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it.
Do the same for a city, and it's less so.
Ah but what about a hypersonic nuke?
Well, no has got one yet, the payload may be an issue, and they offer no advantage over a ballsitic missile. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bit more to this whole area
Nuclear weapons are important for international willy waving contests, you don't have nukes, you are at best a second rate power.
The UK's power and authority has been diminished by brexit, so it needs something to say "look at us, we are HARD, don't mess with us".
So expect the arch willy waver Bozo to push hard for nukes.
Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned hypersonic missiles.
These are not strategic weapons, they are not the same as a ballistic nuke. The ballistic nuke, by definition is a hypersonic weapon, typical speed Mach 25.
The hypersonic missile is great for theatre wide operations, you can drop a hypersonic missile into an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it.
Do the same for a city, and it's less so.
Ah but what about a hypersonic nuke?
Well, no has got one yet, the payload may be an issue, and they offer no advantage over a ballsitic missile."
Disagree slightly . Ballistic missiles can be intercepted and shot down , basically they can be predicted
Hypersonic weapon systems have a deal of manoverability , they kinda zigzag as they go making them almost impossible to shoot down .. That’s why the race is on Between Russia , China and the USA .. to develop them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bit more to this whole area
Nuclear weapons are important for international willy waving contests, you don't have nukes, you are at best a second rate power.
The UK's power and authority has been diminished by brexit, so it needs something to say "look at us, we are HARD, don't mess with us".
So expect the arch willy waver Bozo to push hard for nukes.
Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned hypersonic missiles.
These are not strategic weapons, they are not the same as a ballistic nuke. The ballistic nuke, by definition is a hypersonic weapon, typical speed Mach 25.
The hypersonic missile is great for theatre wide operations, you can drop a hypersonic missile into an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it.
Do the same for a city, and it's less so.
Ah but what about a hypersonic nuke?
Well, no has got one yet, the payload may be an issue, and they offer no advantage over a ballsitic missile.
Disagree slightly . Ballistic missiles can be intercepted and shot down , basically they can be predicted
Hypersonic weapon systems have a deal of manoverability , they kinda zigzag as they go making them almost impossible to shoot down .. That’s why the race is on Between Russia , China and the USA .. to develop them "
fair point, but nukes can manouver as well, and carry decoys.
If you want to shoot one down, best chance is during the launch phase, and hyoersonic missiles have to do a launch themselves either on a ballistic missile, or board an aircraft.
At the moment, they are carrier killers, not a replacement for the likes of Trident
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bit more to this whole area
Nuclear weapons are important for international willy waving contests, you don't have nukes, you are at best a second rate power.
The UK's power and authority has been diminished by brexit, so it needs something to say "look at us, we are HARD, don't mess with us".
So expect the arch willy waver Bozo to push hard for nukes.
Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned hypersonic missiles.
These are not strategic weapons, they are not the same as a ballistic nuke. The ballistic nuke, by definition is a hypersonic weapon, typical speed Mach 25.
The hypersonic missile is great for theatre wide operations, you can drop a hypersonic missile into an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it.
Do the same for a city, and it's less so.
Ah but what about a hypersonic nuke?
Well, no has got one yet, the payload may be an issue, and they offer no advantage over a ballsitic missile.
Disagree slightly . Ballistic missiles can be intercepted and shot down , basically they can be predicted
Hypersonic weapon systems have a deal of manoverability , they kinda zigzag as they go making them almost impossible to shoot down .. That’s why the race is on Between Russia , China and the USA .. to develop them
fair point, but nukes can manouver as well, and carry decoys.
If you want to shoot one down, best chance is during the launch phase, and hyoersonic missiles have to do a launch themselves either on a ballistic missile, or board an aircraft.
At the moment, they are carrier killers, not a replacement for the likes of Trident
"
Is it a deteriont
And would you really want it used if not why have it to me pointless.
And how would really want to invade The UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
"Bit more to this whole area
Nuclear weapons are important for international willy waving contests, you don't have nukes, you are at best a second rate power.
The UK's power and authority has been diminished by brexit, so it needs something to say "look at us, we are HARD, don't mess with us".
So expect the arch willy waver Bozo to push hard for nukes.
Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned hypersonic missiles.
These are not strategic weapons, they are not the same as a ballistic nuke. The ballistic nuke, by definition is a hypersonic weapon, typical speed Mach 25.
The hypersonic missile is great for theatre wide operations, you can drop a hypersonic missile into an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it.
Do the same for a city, and it's less so.
Ah but what about a hypersonic nuke?
Well, no has got one yet, the payload may be an issue, and they offer no advantage over a ballsitic missile.
Disagree slightly . Ballistic missiles can be intercepted and shot down , basically they can be predicted
Hypersonic weapon systems have a deal of manoverability , they kinda zigzag as they go making them almost impossible to shoot down .. That’s why the race is on Between Russia , China and the USA .. to develop them "
Keep up, that race is over, the race is to detect and shoot them down. Wonder who's winning that race. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bit more to this whole area
Nuclear weapons are important for international willy waving contests, you don't have nukes, you are at best a second rate power.
The UK's power and authority has been diminished by brexit, so it needs something to say "look at us, we are HARD, don't mess with us".
So expect the arch willy waver Bozo to push hard for nukes.
Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned hypersonic missiles.
These are not strategic weapons, they are not the same as a ballistic nuke. The ballistic nuke, by definition is a hypersonic weapon, typical speed Mach 25.
The hypersonic missile is great for theatre wide operations, you can drop a hypersonic missile into an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it.
Do the same for a city, and it's less so.
Ah but what about a hypersonic nuke?
Well, no has got one yet, the payload may be an issue, and they offer no advantage over a ballsitic missile.
Disagree slightly . Ballistic missiles can be intercepted and shot down , basically they can be predicted
Hypersonic weapon systems have a deal of manoverability , they kinda zigzag as they go making them almost impossible to shoot down .. That’s why the race is on Between Russia , China and the USA .. to develop them
Keep up, that race is over, the race is to detect and shoot them down. Wonder who's winning that race. "
“Other nations are chasing the trio of leaders—or teaming up with them. Australia is collaborating with the United States on a Mach 8 HGV, and India with Russia on a Mach 7 HCM. France intends to field an HCM by 2022, and Japan is aiming for an HGV in 2026, the U.S. Congressional Research Service noted in a July 2019 report.”
Still looks like a race to me .. ..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"a pointless vanity project for the paranoid and inadequate.Im sure all those workers on the Clyde would disagree with you."
Not all workers as I work at faslane and the sooner its scrapped the better,too much money being wasted on something that will never be used |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
I’m a believer in having a big stick as a last resort so personally support the new builds.
Let’s be honest here it’s our only reason for being at the head table.
My concern is our regular forces are underfunded so we are a one truck pony if our conventional forces aren’t up to scratch.
I don’t know the details of this so admitting no real knowledge so genuine question. Does swarm technology have the power to overwhelm our conventional forces? I know of electronic impulse counter measures but there will be ways around that coming through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"The arms race really is proof of how fucking thick we are as a species.
I know let's create a weapon that can wipe out the entire human race.
That will keep us safe."
It’s stopped the major powers from fighting directly. Sadly it doesn’t stop proxy wars fought between them with third party countries . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The arms race really is proof of how fucking thick we are as a species.
I know let's create a weapon that can wipe out the entire human race.
That will keep us safe.
It’s stopped the major powers from fighting directly. Sadly it doesn’t stop proxy wars fought between them with third party countries . "
There have been at least 3 occasions where armageddon has been averted through dumb luck.
Where is the sense in having that many weapons we can destroy the world several times over?
Its utter insanity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"I’m a believer in having a big stick as a last resort so personally support the new builds.
Let’s be honest here it’s our only reason for being at the head table.
My concern is our regular forces are underfunded so we are a one truck pony if our conventional forces aren’t up to scratch.
I don’t know the details of this so admitting no real knowledge so genuine question. Does swarm technology have the power to overwhelm our conventional forces? I know of electronic impulse counter measures but there will be ways around that coming through. "
The money is spent on defence of the country a nuclear deterrent is defence. We obviously need a navy as we are an island but a large army is not needed unless you want to start getting involved in other peoples wars. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"The arms race really is proof of how fucking thick we are as a species.
I know let's create a weapon that can wipe out the entire human race.
That will keep us safe.
It’s stopped the major powers from fighting directly. Sadly it doesn’t stop proxy wars fought between them with third party countries .
There have been at least 3 occasions where armageddon has been averted through dumb luck.
Where is the sense in having that many weapons we can destroy the world several times over?
Its utter insanity. "
I agree the sheer amount of weapons is insanity and it’s why Reagan threatening to out-spend Russia with star wars that brought them to the table and try to reduce the numbers.
It’s shit having these weapons but for us as a nation it’s more crap not to.
We right now need to worry about the eroding of democracy in the world and the moving towards autocracy.
Erdogan - Turkey
Putin - Russia
Viktor Orban - Hungary
Duete - Philippines
Boldonaro - Brazil
These are more pertinent now and due to the conservatives being in government so long are the powers behind Boris our own autocratic nightmare? We still have the huge income gaps and it’s not getting smaller.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I’m a believer in having a big stick as a last resort so personally support the new builds.
Let’s be honest here it’s our only reason for being at the head table.
My concern is our regular forces are underfunded so we are a one truck pony if our conventional forces aren’t up to scratch.
I don’t know the details of this so admitting no real knowledge so genuine question. Does swarm technology have the power to overwhelm our conventional forces? I know of electronic impulse counter measures but there will be ways around that coming through. The money is spent on defence of the country a nuclear deterrent is defence. We obviously need a navy as we are an island but a large army is not needed unless you want to start getting involved in other peoples wars. "
I don’t think we need a large army but if a country asks for our help can we help?
Should we stand by and let the Serbs slaughter innocents ?
We either defend democracy and our friends or we just watch as the bad guys take over until their gaze eventually comes our way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m a believer in having a big stick as a last resort so personally support the new builds.
Let’s be honest here it’s our only reason for being at the head table.
My concern is our regular forces are underfunded so we are a one truck pony if our conventional forces aren’t up to scratch.
I don’t know the details of this so admitting no real knowledge so genuine question. Does swarm technology have the power to overwhelm our conventional forces? I know of electronic impulse counter measures but there will be ways around that coming through. The money is spent on defence of the country a nuclear deterrent is defence. We obviously need a navy as we are an island but a large army is not needed unless you want to start getting involved in other peoples wars.
I don’t think we need a large army but if a country asks for our help can we help?
Should we stand by and let the Serbs slaughter innocents ?
We either defend democracy and our friends or we just watch as the bad guys take over until their gaze eventually comes our way. "
What with a nuclear weapon.
I get spending the same on planes to go on the 2 new aircraft carriers or more solders but nuclear weapons? ? Do they really help
And yes a swarm would overwhelm the UK so we would press the button then so would others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"I’m a believer in having a big stick as a last resort so personally support the new builds.
Let’s be honest here it’s our only reason for being at the head table.
My concern is our regular forces are underfunded so we are a one truck pony if our conventional forces aren’t up to scratch.
I don’t know the details of this so admitting no real knowledge so genuine question. Does swarm technology have the power to overwhelm our conventional forces? I know of electronic impulse counter measures but there will be ways around that coming through. The money is spent on defence of the country a nuclear deterrent is defence. We obviously need a navy as we are an island but a large army is not needed unless you want to start getting involved in other peoples wars.
I don’t think we need a large army but if a country asks for our help can we help?
Should we stand by and let the Serbs slaughter innocents ?
We either defend democracy and our friends or we just watch as the bad guys take over until their gaze eventually comes our way. "
Nope but thats why you have the united nations usually a few of them get together and send troops to restore the peace not great big armys. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atonMan
over a year ago
barnet |
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required "
and thats a problem?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required "
According to the Army website there's 112k regular and reserve soldiers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required "
We do not need to retake he Falkland's as they are now defended before there was a handful of troops no air or sea support against 5,000 invaders it wouldnt happen again. 
Unless the uk was going to invade another country there is no need for a large army. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I’m a believer in having a big stick as a last resort so personally support the new builds.
Let’s be honest here it’s our only reason for being at the head table.
My concern is our regular forces are underfunded so we are a one truck pony if our conventional forces aren’t up to scratch.
I don’t know the details of this so admitting no real knowledge so genuine question. Does swarm technology have the power to overwhelm our conventional forces? I know of electronic impulse counter measures but there will be ways around that coming through. The money is spent on defence of the country a nuclear deterrent is defence. We obviously need a navy as we are an island but a large army is not needed unless you want to start getting involved in other peoples wars.
I don’t think we need a large army but if a country asks for our help can we help?
Should we stand by and let the Serbs slaughter innocents ?
We either defend democracy and our friends or we just watch as the bad guys take over until their gaze eventually comes our way. Nope but thats why you have the united nations usually a few of them get together and send troops to restore the peace not great big armys."
The two methods of defence are not related. The nuclear is for a fuck off to the likes of China, Russia etc.
The army needs to be of a strength to actually join a nato or United Nations force.
If we make the army too small their is no attraction to younger people joining as we’ll end up with a ceremonial force.
I’m not suggesting huge numbers but I think below 80,000 and it’s not an army it’s becoming a security force.
We have dependencies all over the world and if people know we can’t at least give them a bloody nose they will take them. Just as Argentina thought.
Whether we should be keeping those dependencies is another thing.
Ultimately the army needs to be a powerful as our desire to act. I believe at one point we had troops in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Falklands, Nigeria, all at the same time. The army said they were too thinly stretched. Should we be in all those places? That’s a political question but the armed forces end up paying with their lives if they are too weak and not sufficiently armed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required We do not need to retake he Falkland's as they are now defended before there was a handful of troops no air or sea support against 5,000 invaders it wouldnt happen again.
Unless the uk was going to invade another country there is no need for a large army."
I agree with you.
It's a waste of money having a big army. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required We do not need to retake he Falkland's as they are now defended before there was a handful of troops no air or sea support against 5,000 invaders it wouldnt happen again.
Unless the uk was going to invade another country there is no need for a large army.
I agree with you.
It's a waste of money having a big army."
Nice to agree on something for a change.   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required We do not need to retake he Falkland's as they are now defended before there was a handful of troops no air or sea support against 5,000 invaders it wouldnt happen again.
Unless the uk was going to invade another country there is no need for a large army.
I agree with you.
It's a waste of money having a big army.Nice to agree on something for a change. "
.
But when the US mentions a America first policy ever country loses its minds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Btw we no longer have what is considered an "army " as we are well below the magik 80k troops we have what is considered by the rest of the world as a defence force .we COULD NOT re take the falkland if required We do not need to retake he Falkland's as they are now defended before there was a handful of troops no air or sea support against 5,000 invaders it wouldnt happen again.
Unless the uk was going to invade another country there is no need for a large army.
I agree with you.
It's a waste of money having a big army.Nice to agree on something for a change. .
But when the US mentions a America first policy ever country loses its minds."
In what way?
"America first" really meant, Trump's bank balance first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
Yes, keep Trident, it is well respected by the likes of Russia and China for good reason.
As for retaking the Falklands today, a doddle. It took some modern T22 ships to arrange a picket line, today one T45 could do that and more. They could easily be cut off until the troops turn up.
This year the RN will deploy the most powerful task force most probably since the Falklands if not before. It will be working with others, but it will get the highest level of interest from others, compared to other nations working alongside the RN, it will not be welcome in their neighbourhood. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
Scrap it.
I'd rather learn to speak Russian or whatever than see nuclear war visited on people. Threads had a powerful effect.
We'd never use it independently. It's a pointless vanity project that enables us to pretend we've still got a seat at the top table and somehow matter on a global scale. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Scrap trident and live naked like the trees, the unicorns will save us anyway, love is far more powerful 
Chinese unicorns do they make noodles ?  "
oh yes, a trans chinese/russian cross breed that likes to bugger people while eating noddles with a trident shaped phallus up its rectum! have i gone too far?lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Scrap trident and live naked like the trees, the unicorns will save us anyway, love is far more powerful
Chinese unicorns do they make noodles ?
oh yes, a trans chinese/russian cross breed that likes to bugger people while eating noddles with a trident shaped phallus up its rectum! have i gone too far?lol "
To be fair vaginas not that areodynamic. Mine just whistles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
