£15 Billion extra for defence?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£15 Billion extra for defence?!
I'm talking about Trident! 
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
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm in favour of a stretched Astute class with a small Trident missile compartment fitted with perhaps 4 missiles with 10 MIRVs each. Four of those would give a very useful dual purpose capability. The RN can no longer justify single role SSBNs. Cruise missiles can be shot down and take too long to arrive at their targets and so are not credible at a strategic level.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Just how much does a bucket of instant sunshine need to be 'modernised'?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dorset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like all deterrents, it is only good if the other side believe that we will use it – I am not sure that we would have the balls even if we were nuked first (maintain the moral high ground etc)!!! Therefore, I say get ride of it and spend the money on something that we will use.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN can no longer justify single role SSBN's
"Britain will maintain fewer than 200 operationally available warheads"
according to 1998 defence review..
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...reduced the numbers yes but never given them up...
From Wikipedia:
South Africa developed a small finite deterrence arsenal of gun-type fission weapons in the 1980s. Six were constructed and another was under construction at the time the program ended.
None of the six bombs were particularly sophisticated, being designed to be delivered from one of the aircraft types then in service with the South African Air Force, presumed to have been either the Buccaneer or Cheetah D.
However, South Africa had a relatively sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile programme running concurrently with the nuclear programme, and was known to be working on more sophisticated nuclear weapons capable of delivery from such a platform. According to published data one of the missiles, the RSA-4, may have been capable of delivering a 700 kg nuclear warhead from its South African launch site to any point on earth.
None of the six bombs were particularly sophisticated, being designed to be delivered from one of the aircraft types then in service with the South African Air Force, presumed to have been either the Buccaneer or Cheetah D.
However, South Africa had a relatively sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile programme running concurrently with the nuclear programme, and was known to be working on more sophisticated nuclear weapons capable of delivery from such a platform. According to published data one of the missiles, the RSA-4, may have been capable of delivering a 700 kg nuclear warhead from its South African launch site to any point on earth.
Apparently they go off if not given regular TLC. I can't imagine what would cause that
The Tritium decays.
See some other threads:
RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent
Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 Billion?
UK Future Deterrent
Trident to carry on
But I can't help thinking LK is right.........
The Tritium decays.
See some other threads:
RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent
Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 Billion?
UK Future Deterrent
Trident to carry on
But I can't help thinking LK is right.........
