He is not an idiot.
 

£100,000,000,000. Is that what 100 billion looks like?
On a weapon designed to replace like for like another weapon from another time - the long gone cold war.
Far from an idiot to bring this matter to our attention.
Wish we could have a national debate about it, but we wont even have a nation soon, the way we are going.UK is rapidly splitting apart.
We actually cant use Trident without American permission....its not independent and neither would its replacement be. America is stringing us along.
Money.
We haven't even got white lines painted correctly on the roads anymore in the county I live in. The whole infrastructure looks increasingly shot.
Our local Govt. budget is shot.
Not to mention the flood damage....the future with that alone.... Our national debt. Our increasing national overdraft....
Lots and lots of better ways to spend this money (which we haven't got).
Get rid, don't replace.

Hangar, do you really think that Comrade Corbyn's stance is in anyway related to the cost of replacing Trident? I think he would take this view if the replacement cost was 1 million, not 100 Billion. The guy is a fool, and what's more, he is a dangerous fool. This man leading the opposition worries me. The thought of him leading the country terrifies me.

S-D

Nail head Salad we've had our disagreements but you're bang on there
Jon

Hangershuffle,

Please explain why the UK cannot '...use Trident without American permission...?

American permission
 

There seems to be some contention on here apparently from people in the know, that The PM can't authorise the use of Trident without the nod from our American cousins.


So, would anyone like to come up with a hard answer as to why?


And can you explain how, in the event of a 'bolt from the blue' strike on London which decapitated the command and control structure authorising retaliation, how American permission would be required when operating orders would be to look at 'the letters of last resort' safely tucked away in a safe deep under the North Atlantic?


The PM would surely have had to leave instruction in these for the missiles to be put under US control? And say if the US was obliterated by a first strike also.....

It's not difficult?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-a...clear-weapons/

Are we important enough to be attacked by anyone with Nuclear missiles anyway.

Often stated, never backed up. You are simply regurgitating bull****.

Not an idiot? What's so smart about suggesting we keep Trident (or whatever comes later), discard the nuclear warheads and then tell the whole world that's what we're doing? Or are you as deluded as Comrade Corbinsky?

Yes, opinion is divided over this. You and Corbyn think it's a good idea to have nukes without warheads, the rest of the country thinks it's not.

Once again, you are completely wrong about a fairly fundamental, yet vital, fact about UK Defence. Perhaps you need to re-examine some of your anti-military ideas and consider how many more of them might not be based on the real world.

I think those who are hard of thinking are linking the long since defunct nuclear sharing via nato or the old Thor/Jupiters with the fact we share maintenance of the Trident solid rocket boosters with the septics....


Two plus two equals conspiracy.
Trident =Independant

There seems to be confusion here. I'd defer to Hennessy who answered this very question last week. In effect there is no US input into the firing chain - ergo we could fire when/ if we wanted to (and the Letters of Last Resort seem to back this up). However, we are beholden to the US for the supply of parts under the Nassau/Polaris/Trident agreements so if the US decided to pull the plug his best guess was 12-18 months before the lack of spares/support caused the capability to fall over.

Just rubbishing Corbyn isn't good enough - there IS a genuine case for not replacing Trident - there was an interesting Op-Ed piece in yesterdays "Times" listing people from ex Maj-Gen Cordingley to Crispin Blunt (Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee) to Porillo and others who have serious reservations

these are not raving leftie lunatics

personally I'm (slightly) in favour of Successor on the grounds that its a capability that once lost will enver be recreated and it will last another 40 years. It only is useful as a threat against Russia & China TBH but Russia is a bit to close and unpredictable in my view to be totally trusted

But it does come at a cost - we could double the effective size of our conventional forces without it annd still have money left over

It's peanuts compared with what the nation spends on benefits.

Just to put the cost of Successor into context.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...25-Chart-1.jpg

£40Bn = slightly more than we pay each year in debt interest

£40Bn = just over 2 months of "Social protection" each year

£40BN = just under 4 months spend on NHS, each year

Anyone who thinks any money diverted from Successor would go back into defence needs their bumps feeling. Those who do tend to be of a pongo persuasion who see that mythical readjustment as the magic wand to protect the 64th Foot & Mouth Regt......

and pensions ...... but that's another story

ask voters if their benifits and pensions should be cut to pay for Trident and you'll have Corbyn in number 10 in no time at all

And Boffin the very Tory voters who moan on about NHS spending etc etc are the same people who are ready to die in the ditch to protect their local hospitals, moan to the Daily Mail about "post Code Lotteries" in treatment and want every new drug available to everyone, immediately & at no cost to themselves

We can't have everything - and we can't even have some of what we want if people want tax rates at 20% rather than the rates we paid in through the 1950's -70's

Maybe Corbyn is saying it to curry favour with the SNP who I'm sure would love to keep the jobs and investment which Faslane brings but don't want the the nuclear warheads which go along with it, so maybe there is some other method in his madness.

I thought the Daily Hate was a UKIP paper......or is that the Express?

Merely pointing out that the "vast cost" of Successor is a mere drop in the ocean in government spending. Only the completely irrational believe that you can maintain what is in effect a public service with unconstrained demand and ever more expensive treatments on a pure taxation basis.

Not sure how you get a doubling in effectiveness of conventional forces from the £2Bn a year you'd release from the successor programme either.....even in the unlikely event the Treasury signed the cheque.

I wasn't just rubbishing Corbyn, I was also rubbishing your opinion based on flawed knowledge concerning the independence of UK's nuclear deterrent AND Corbyn's ridiculous statement about having a nuclear deterrent without warheads.

Any deterrent is only the least bit useful against anyone if your enemy KNOWS it has a Big Bang at the end of it and Government willing to use it; both things that Corbyn is happy to undermine.

Of course, if you still think they are all controlled by the US, Corbyn wouldn't have to worry about that, would he?

Friends we are hanging on to being a nuclear power for exactly why? There are two traditional superpowers left and one now fully emerging. We and France are bygones-its hard, but accept it.
Our country...look around it - we need the money elsewhere now....its very obvious.
This cant last. We have to stare reality in the face.

"Friends, Britons, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Britain, not to praise it.... We who are all about to die should salute each other....because "to be or not to be", that is the question.. and whether to give up now and lie weeping on our beds or to hide our nuclear weapons in a sea of troubles and by opposing end them barstards....."