sense1
29th Aug 2006, 18:37
I'm talking about Trident! :hmm:
The issue of replacing the nations' nuclear detterent is one that will become ever more important over the next few months/years. The pundits have predicted the cost of a successor at anywhere between £10 - £20 Billion.
That is an astronomical amount of money by anyones standards - indeed it would almost get you a whole F-22 Raptor! :}
I am interested in gauging the opinion of all you ppruners out there as to whether investing this many Billions in continuing to be a nuclear power is worth all that dosh?!
I personally think that Britain should continue to maintain nuclear weapons - especially considering the current state of affairs in this big bad world of ours.
However, just think what £15 Billion could get you in your shopping cart..... a combination of more C-17s, CH-47s, bucket loads more Storm Shadows & Tomahawks, Predator Bs and a Canberra replacement, a decent number of AAR assets, as well as financing the future of projects such as CVF, Type 45 and FRES.
Wow, wouldn't that be nice! My big assumption here is that if the Trident successor wasn't purchased, that any money 'saved' would ever make it anywhere near the defence budget!
But still, is maintaining the nuclear detterent a sensible investment in this day and age? Or should the government opt to be a non-nuclear power, but with conventional armed forces that are properly equiped for the job?!
Sense1
The issue of replacing the nations' nuclear detterent is one that will become ever more important over the next few months/years. The pundits have predicted the cost of a successor at anywhere between £10 - £20 Billion.
That is an astronomical amount of money by anyones standards - indeed it would almost get you a whole F-22 Raptor! :}
I am interested in gauging the opinion of all you ppruners out there as to whether investing this many Billions in continuing to be a nuclear power is worth all that dosh?!
I personally think that Britain should continue to maintain nuclear weapons - especially considering the current state of affairs in this big bad world of ours.
However, just think what £15 Billion could get you in your shopping cart..... a combination of more C-17s, CH-47s, bucket loads more Storm Shadows & Tomahawks, Predator Bs and a Canberra replacement, a decent number of AAR assets, as well as financing the future of projects such as CVF, Type 45 and FRES.
Wow, wouldn't that be nice! My big assumption here is that if the Trident successor wasn't purchased, that any money 'saved' would ever make it anywhere near the defence budget!
But still, is maintaining the nuclear detterent a sensible investment in this day and age? Or should the government opt to be a non-nuclear power, but with conventional armed forces that are properly equiped for the job?!
Sense1