- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 30,017
Edward Leigh making some solid points.
Thats just the build cost, running costs add another 130bn
Before you attack me I'm in favour, but to pretend it doesn't cost a fortune is daft
Fallon said: "Together the four new boats will cost around £31bn, spread over 35 years. That’s around 20 pence in every £100 that the government spends. The replacement Trident will see us through the 2020's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
35,000 jobs is a lot. Plus we'll be able to sabre-rattle with the best of them with our shiny new nukes.Manufacturing is about the only reason I can think of for renewing Trident. It makes sense on no other logical level, except in the minds of scarlet majors.
Yeah, the only argument that I accept is the job argument. The rest is nonsense. Economically, it makes sense - unless the government were to use that money in some other public sector/infrastructure program. The problem I have with it is that it's not necessary.35,000 jobs is a lot. Plus we'll be able to sabre-rattle with the best of them with our shiny new nukes.
I'm kind of tirn on the issue tbh. While in many ways I'm sure we could use the American nuke umbrella, having a deterrent is never a bad thing. Obviously the current main enemy is not one you fight with nukes though.Yeah, the only argument that I accept is the job argument. The rest is nonsense. Economically, it makes sense - unless the government were to use that money in some other public sector/infrastructure program. The problem I have with it is that it's not necessary.
I'm kind of tirn on the issue tbh. While in many ways I'm sure we could use the American nuke umbrella, having a deterrent is never a bad thing. Obviously the current main enemy is not one you fight with nukes though.
The infrastructure argument makes a lot of sense, but examples from all over have repeatedly shown that the public purse makes stupid mistakes with its choices.
We can't plan our way out of a wet paper bag tbf. Look at the Heathrow expansion and HS2 railway fiascos. Years on and nothing has happened.I doubt every choice would be wasteful, or even the majority
Fallon said: "Together the four new boats will cost around £31bn, spread over 35 years. That’s around 20 pence in every £100 that the government spends. The replacement Trident will see us through the 2020's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
Margaret Richie just nailed it in the commons - it's status over safety. Very true. I'd go so far as to say there is no enemy you can fight with nukes - both sides lose, it's just that simple. It reminds me of this:I'm kind of tirn on the issue tbh. While in many ways I'm sure we could use the American nuke umbrella, having a deterrent is never a bad thing. Obviously the current main enemy is not one you fight with nukes though.
The infrastructure argument makes a lot of sense, but examples from all over have repeatedly shown that the public purse makes stupid mistakes with its choices.
I thought they weren't even ready until early 2030s? Aren't we dependent on the the US extension as well which is only until 2042 right now. Whats the plan after that?
It also has to be remembered that there would be a cost involved to scrapping Trident and also according to an iquiry no alternative could be operational before 2035 at the earliest, and projected that 2040 was more likely. This would mean that to some extent the current Trident replacement plans would need to be continued until then if the UK were to keep its nuclear deterrent.
Can't they just park them in that Scottish base and leave them?
Can't they just park them in that Scottish base and leave them?
Not right now. But the question is could it be within the next 60 years?Lets get real. The nuclear threat these days is not from a state that will care if we retaliate or not.
Maybe ... certainly not if other nations followed our example though. It is actually a fairly similar principle to gun laws in a America.Not right now. But the question is could it be within the next 60 years?
I'm sure you even park a sub But if they did I'm sure the rag and bone man would be round sharpish!
Personally I'm convinced that the next time nuclear weapons will be used it will because of an accident of some sort.
Quite probably. I particularly like all the MP's who talk big about "multilateral disarmament", yet are presumably doing absolutely nothing to try or attempt to bring this into effect. Not that it's an easy thing to do, or at all possible...but if certain politicians believe in multilateral disarmament, it'd be nice to see them making an effort to do something about that. As it stands it's just a convenient reason to support nukes. At least the ones who fully believe in them are honest.
The Skynet argument?Personally I'm convinced that the next time nuclear weapons will be used it will because of an accident of some sort.
I do multilateral timesheets at work.
The Skynet argument?
I haven't really contemplated how too much, although human error seems fairly likely thinking about it.
Basically what I think is that for each day that countries have nuclear weapons there is a chance of some sort of accident, as we move through the years we will move asymptotically toward 100% chance - the more weapons that exist the quicker we will get there. It's not a question of if but when to me.
I just want less of them on the planet.
I know. Humanity eradicated by some hungover fat-fingered moron.I haven't really contemplated how too much, although human error seems fairly likely thinking about it.
Basically what I think is that for each day that countries have nuclear weapons there is a chance of some sort of accident, as we move through the years we will move asymptotically toward 100% chance - the more weapons that exist the quicker we will get there. It's not a question of if but when to me.
I just want less of them on the planet.
Not right now. But the question is could it be within the next 60 years?
I think the Foreign and Defence shadow secretaries were among the abstentions.
Would be pretty ridiculous to be arguing for the continuation of the deterrent if she wasn't prepared to use it (publicly, at least).The nuke launch button, if such a thing existed, should be labelled "Game Over!". Who, seriously, would press that - I mean who that is sane? May said today she would.
The nuke launch button, if such a thing existed, should be labelled "Game Over!". Who, seriously, would press that - I mean who that is sane? May said today she would.
I just dont get abstaining over such key votes. It seems a gross failure to me. Ridiculous
Would be pretty ridiculous to be arguing for the continuation of the deterrent if she wasn't prepared to use it (publicly, at least).