10 Jul 06
The nuclear submarine missile system, Trident, is reaching obsolesence.
We are told we need a replacement, and it looks like this will happen without much in the way of a debate.
This is despite:
- it will cost £25-£40 billion, which could pay for 120,000 new qualified nurses each year for the next 10 years or 60,000 new teachers every year for 20 years or provide a £2500 bonus for every pensioner (exept one) in the UK;
- it will cost £1.5 billion a year to operate;
- it breaches the non-proliferation treaty;
- despite the cost, the UK wouldn't even own the damn things - we'd be leasing them from the US;
- far from somehow 'protecting us' (from whom, exactly?), they just make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeOh go on, let him have his bonus!
The nuclear submarine missile system, Trident, is reaching obsolesence.
We are told we need a replacement, and it looks like this will happen without much in the way of a debate.
This is despite:
- it will cost £25-£40 billion, which could pay for 120,000 new qualified nurses each year for the next 10 years or 60,000 new teachers every year for 20 y ...[text shortened]... protecting us' (from whom, exactly?), they just make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks
Personally, I am starting to think we DO need a nuclear deterrent. I am starting to believe every single nation has the right, if not the duty to their citizens, to have nuclear weapons because without them it seems your sovereignty is no longer respected on the world stage.
Having said that, I don't know if the Trident weapons we have now are unreliable or if the UK has been told it's time to upgrade to Trident 2.04 as the current versions are no longer supported. If they still work then I don't see any reason to replace them and if they don't I'd rather buy them from someone else, perhaps India.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by WheelyWell, only if I could be sure his £2500 came entirely from Scottish taxpayers.....
Oh go on, let him have his bonus!
Personally, I am starting to think we DO need a nuclear deterrent. I am starting to believe every single nation has the right, if not the duty to their citizens, to have nuclear weapons because without them it seems your sovereignty is no longer respected on the world stage.
Having said that, I don't know if the Triden ...[text shortened]... son to replace them and if they don't I'd rather buy them from someone else, perhaps India.
But, if the missiles are actually owned by the US, they'd presumably have some kind of veto on their use, so the UK's sovereignity is stuffed anyway.
I'm not sure what actually makes Trident obsolete. Are we re-using the warhead material for the new ones?
I'm not sure India, or anyone else, has the sort of submarine systems we're told we need.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI like the idea of the Scottish tax payers forking out for his bonus 🙂
Well, only if I could be sure his £2500 came entirely from Scottish taxpayers.....
But, if the missiles are actually owned by the US, they'd presumably have some kind of veto on their use, so the UK's sovereignity is stuffed anyway.
I'm not sure what actually makes Trident obsolete. Are we re-using the warhead material for the new ones?
I'm not sure India, or anyone else, has the sort of submarine systems we're told we need.
I imagine the UK government has been told it is time to upgrade and there will be some simple concession made by the US government in some negotiation about some trade agreement somewhere to compensate.
I'm pretty sure Britain used to make its own nuclear subs, wasn't Polaris British? Although I don't think Britain needs a nuclear weapons system, I do think it benefits from one and IF the current systems can not be made to look like they work then I suggest they do need to be replaced though still would prefer a home grown solution. I suspect, however, that they don't need replacing.
I suggested India as most jobs are going to end up there in and for a few years so why not give them our military too, after all, it will appear to be cheaper.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by WheelyI don't know if we get £40 billion worth of benefits.
I like the idea of the Scottish tax payers forking out for his bonus 🙂
I imagine the UK government has been told it is time to upgrade and there will be some simple concession made by the US government in some negotiation about some trade agreement somewhere to compensate.
I'm pretty sure Britain used to make its own nuclear subs, wasn't Polaris Britis ...[text shortened]... a few years so why not give them our military too, after all, it will appear to be cheaper.
Yes, I think Polaris was British built.
10 Jul 06
Nuclear weapons are morally corrupt.
Not only do they only serve to destroy infra-structure and kill civilians, they do not target the enemy in the least (the enemy being in nuclear bunkers).
They are expensive and totally pointless for dealing with current issues and supposed threats.
So no, the UK shouldn't bother replacing them. Maybe donating that money to Palestine would go a long way to creating a better world and a more secure homeland.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by shavixmirI thought you were all for using those nukes?
Nuclear weapons are morally corrupt.
Not only do they only serve to destroy infra-structure and kill civilians, they do not target the enemy in the least (the enemy being in nuclear bunkers).
They are expensive and totally pointless for dealing with current issues and supposed threats.
So no, the UK shouldn't bother replacing them. Maybe donating ...[text shortened]... t money to Palestine would go a long way to creating a better world and a more secure homeland.
Anyhow, I suppose if we are going to have them, then they will have to be upgraded or we end up with out-dated technology like the regular armed forces have to put up with.
But leasing them from someone else just seems foolish.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargI do think if we have them we should use them.
I thought you were all for using those nukes?
Anyhow, I suppose if we are going to have them, then they will have to be upgraded or we end up with out-dated technology like the regular armed forces have to put up with.
But leasing them from someone else just seems foolish.
The only reason they exist is because a few men make an awful lot of money out of selling them. If they're used generously, then these same men won't have anything to spend their money on!
I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of nukes don't even work.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by shavixmirI think there's something in that.
I do think if we have them we should use them.
The only reason they exist is because a few men make an awful lot of money out of selling them. If they're used generously, then these same men won't have anything to spend their money on!
I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of nukes don't even work.
People who sit on big budgets, whether it's in business or government seem to have a hole burning in their pockets.
In a business it might be that they simply have to blow millions on a new IT system, or "management consultants" or whatever.
Perhaps it's just that they have to be seen to be doing something and spending money shows that they are?
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by JokerFiveNo, you're wrong - having highly trained and disciplined archers is what made England great - we should keep that up!
Hail, Britannia, Britannia roooooo0000OOOLZ teh waves!
England should ALWAYS keep their naval fleet up to snuff, it's what made them a world beater. Only sissified punks would argue against them having the best navy they can afford.