35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[I1L2T3]

small change compared to the 12 billion we waste on EU membership every year . £33million per day , now that is what you call waste.

 

It has been estimated we would lose 2% of GDP if we left the EU. That's about £40bn at the moment. Hey, maybe the GDP boost we get from the EU is actually paying for Trident!!!!

 

[mjw47]

small change compared to the 12 billion we waste on EU membership every year . £33million per day , now that is what you call waste.

 

Small beer in the scheme of things, we receive multi billions by being in the EU in trade and grants.

 

It costs us 11 billion a year to subsidise Northern Ireland with no return.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.belfasttelegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2Fnews%2Ftop-expert-warns-northern-ireland-economy-is-facing-meltdown-28779242.html&ei=KKMpVa_DEIPcau7JgZAM&usg=AFQjCNGYMrCsXY-5u5_B5EBXFGtg0LJq1g&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

[staninoodle]

In order to do that this mythical tin pot dictator would require to land on our shores and take over the country by force.

 

Currently we are members of the European Union and have allies, even if we left it those countries would view any such move as representing a future threat to them, as we did at the beginning of WW2, we weren't invaded, an ally was.

 

I am not proposing that we disarm and leave ourselves without military defence capabilities I simply believe that with the economic state the country is in we can no longer afford to spend billions on a weapon that we will never use and are entirely dependent on the US for it's operation.

 

If say the Russians decided by way of a trade deal to swap state of the art Aircraft,ICBMS and other hardware for embargo listed items from Argentina in an attempt to liberate the Falklands,would our NATO allies back us,i doubt it,and given that countries new status,could we defend the falklands against that threat?Again i seriously doubt we could.Given that scenario what other threats could we face.

That scenario has already begun,Russia supplied two SA migs for embargo breaking items.

Make no mistake Russia views the uk as the largest soft target,closest ally to the us and the most underarmed.

Edited April 12, 2015 by staninoodle

[loraward]

Currently we are members of the European Union and have allies, even if we left it those countries would view any such move as representing a future threat to them, as we did at the beginning of WW2, we weren't invaded, an ally was.

 

I am not proposing that we disarm and leave ourselves without military defence capabilities I simply believe that with the economic state the country is in we can no longer afford to spend billions on a weapon that we will never use and are entirely dependent on the US for it's operation.

 

If say the Russians decided by way of a trade deal to swap state of the art Aircraft,ICBMS and other hardware for embargo listed items from Argentina in an attempt to liberate the Falklands,would our NATO allies back us,i doubt it,and given that countries new status,could we defend the falklands against that threat?Again i seriously doubt we could.Given that scenario what other threats could we face.

That scenario has already begun,Russia supplied two SA migs for embargo breaking items.

Make no mistake Russia views the uk as the largest soft target,closest ally to the us and the most underarmed.

 

We use them every day and they aren't entirely dependent on the US for their operation.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2015 at 07:47 ----------

 

It has been estimated we would lose 2% of GDP if we left the EU. That's about £40bn at the moment. Hey, maybe the GDP boost we get from the EU is actually paying for Trident!!!!

 

 

Its also been estimated that GDP would grow if we leave the EU.

[mjw47]

We use them every day and they aren't entirely dependent on the US for their operation.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2015 at 07:47 ----------

 

 

Its also been estimated that GDP would grow if we leave the EU.

 

We don't use them every day, when was the last nuclear device activated by the UK?

 

The last I'm aware of was a test in 1991.

 

And yes, as has been explained to you we are dependent upon the USA for continued use of the weapon. Even the Commodore who is claiming that Trident is independent added the proviso ' providing the Americans don't rat on the agreements'.

 

If you have to rely on another party for anything you cannot claim to be independent.

 

Who was it exactly that estimated that GDP would grow if we left the EU?

 

Might it perhaps have been someone who was in favour of leaving the EU?

 

I'd like to hear their explanation as to how exactly we would manage that seeing as how EU countries are substantial trade partners and we would still have to comply with all EU regulations in order to continue with that trade.

 

There is also the uncertainty with regard to how the other EU nations would react to our leaving.

 

Should they decide to impose import charges on our goods there would be nothing to stop them.

 

They might also begin an ongoing program of searching out replacements for British goods from other sources.

 

They may do none of those things but I don't see how anyone can claim positively that our GDP would grow.

 

We'd be stepping into the unknown.

[JFKvsNixon]

We don't use them every day, when was the last nuclear device activated by the UK?

 

The last I'm aware of was a test in 1991.

 

And yes, as has been explained to you we are dependent upon the USA for continued use of the weapon. Even the Commodore who is claiming that Trident is independent added the proviso ' providing the Americans don't rat on the agreements'.

 

If you have to rely on another party for anything you cannot claim to be independent.

 

Who was it exactly that estimated that GDP would grow if we left the EU?

 

Might it perhaps have been someone who was in favour of leaving the EU?

 

I'd like to hear their explanation as to how exactly we would manage that seeing as how EU countries are substantial trade partners and we would still have to comply with all EU regulations in order to continue with that trade.

 

There is also the uncertainty with regard to how the other EU nations would react to our leaving.

 

Should they decide to impose import charges on our goods there would be nothing to stop them.

 

They might also begin an ongoing program of searching out replacements for British goods from other sources.

 

They may do none of those things but I don't see how anyone can claim positively that our GDP would grow.

 

We'd be stepping into the unknown.

 

I think that we've had at least one ballistic missile submarine on station since 1969, so the deference has been in constant use since 1969.

 

When you consider that the UK submarine crew can launch their missiles without the being given any launch codes or authorisation from the UK government, why do you believe that the UK submarine crew are reliant upon the Americans to launch their missiles?

[mjw47]

I think that we've had at least one ballistic missile submarine on station since 1969, so the deference has been in constant use since 1969.

 

When you consider that the UK submarine crew can launch their missiles without the being given any launch codes or authorisation from the UK government, why do you believe that the UK submarine crew are reliant upon the Americans to launch their missiles?

 

Because the UK does what it's told to do by the Americans. Which is why we are regarded as a US 'vassal state' by a number of other European nations.

 

Because Commodore Tim Hare who claims that Trident is independent in the following link at section 82, then went on to contradict himself in section 83 by admitting that there was a potential disadvantage in the UK decision to forgo independence of acquisition if "we became estranged from the Americans and they decided to rat on their agreements" he thought that risk was "very low" not just a Commodore but a psychic who can see into the future and predict events.

 

He then went on to admit it was about cost.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200506%2Fcmselect%2Fcmdfence%2F986%2F98607.htm&ei=MFcpVai6K62v7Ab1kIGYCg&usg=AFQjCNHDCv2VjIjgHZ2CHFqV_T6OsDf91g&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The chances of us launching a nuclear missile without the OK from Washington is zero.

 

Which politician or naval commander wants to be the one that completely destroys our so called 'special relationship' and simultaneously ensures that from that moment on the US will " rat on their agreements" and leave us with no future deterrent?

[loraward]

We don't use them every day, when was the last nuclear device activated by the UK?

 

The last I'm aware of was a test in 1991.

 

And yes, as has been explained to you we are dependent upon the USA for continued use of the weapon. Even the Commodore who is claiming that Trident is independent added the proviso ' providing the Americans don't rat on the agreements'.

 

If you have to rely on another party for anything you cannot claim to be independent.

 

Who was it exactly that estimated that GDP would grow if we left the EU?

 

Might it perhaps have been someone who was in favour of leaving the EU?

 

I'd like to hear their explanation as to how exactly we would manage that seeing as how EU countries are substantial trade partners and we would still have to comply with all EU regulations in order to continue with that trade.

 

There is also the uncertainty with regard to how the other EU nations would react to our leaving.

 

Should they decide to impose import charges on our goods there would be nothing to stop them.

 

They might also begin an ongoing program of searching out replacements for British goods from other sources.

 

They may do none of those things but I don't see how anyone can claim positively that our GDP would grow.

 

We'd be stepping into the unknown.

 

They serves as a deterrent every day so we do use them every day, if we ever have the need to fire them you will be able to claim that they were useless in fulfilling their objective. They are a successful deterrent if they are never launched.

[JFKvsNixon]

Because the UK does what it's told to do by the Americans. Which is why we are regarded as a US 'vassal state' by a number of other European nations.

 

Because Commodore Tim Hare who claims that Trident is independent in the following link at section 82, then went on to contradict himself in section 83 by admitting that there was a potential disadvantage in the UK decision to forgo independence of acquisition if "we became estranged from the Americans and they decided to rat on their agreements" he thought that risk was "very low" not just a Commodore but a psychic who can see into the future and predict events.

 

He then went on to admit it was about cost.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200506%2Fcmselect%2Fcmdfence%2F986%2F98607.htm&ei=MFcpVai6K62v7Ab1kIGYCg&usg=AFQjCNHDCv2VjIjgHZ2CHFqV_T6OsDf91g&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The chances of us launching a nuclear missile without the OK from Washington is zero.

 

Which politician or naval commander wants to be the one that completely destroys our so called 'special relationship' and simultaneously ensures that from that moment on the US will " rat on their agreements" and leave us with no future deterrent?

 

Your taking your quotes out of context.

 

The quotes are talking about our relying upon the Americans to supply the equipment, for example the missiles are leased from the Americans and some of the components in the warheads and the submarines are made by the Americans.

 

So their concerns are that if they stop supplying us with the equipment need to service the warheads/submarine, or if they even break the the leasing agreement then we'll struggle to maintain the deterrent.

 

Ultimately we don't need the ok from Downing street to launch our missiles, the choice rests with the crew of the Trident submarines. If they lose contact with our government and a set of perimeters happen then they can launch without any orders. So there is not need to involve the White House in any part of the process.

 

Taken from your link:

 

Dr Lee Willett, of RUSI, stated that the Trident II D5 missile was "a totally self-contained package" which had "an inertial guidance system that takes it to a point in space, and then the ballistic trajectory then takes it to the latitudinal and longitudinal point on the target" and that "it does not…. rely on external guidance systems such as American satellites"

 

So thank you for helping us put that theory that we need the Americans's permission to fire the missiles to bed.

[mjw47]

Your taking your quotes out of context.

 

The quotes are talking about our relying upon the Americans to supply the equipment, for example the missiles are leased from the Americans and some of the components in the warheads and the submarines are made by the Americans.

 

So their concerns are that if they stop supplying us with the equipment need to service the warheads/submarine, or if they even break the the leasing agreement then we'll struggle to maintain the deterrent.

 

Ultimately we don't need the ok from Downing street to launch our missiles, the choice rests with the crew of the Trident submarines. If they lose contact with our government and a set of perimeters happen then they can launch without any orders. So there is not need to involve the White House in any part of the process.

 

Taken from your link:

 

 

 

So thank you for helping us put that theory that we need the Americans's permission to fire the missiles to bed.

 

Try to think it through in a logical manner.

 

The claim that it is independent in the true sense is a lie.

 

For it to be truly independent we could use it entirely at our own discretion without needing to take into consideration any consequences other than those from the enemy, correct?

 

We can't do that, can we?

 

Should we choose to act independently of consultation with the US then our future deterrent capability which we have spent billions on would be in jeopardy.

 

Even the people trying to claim that it's independent accept that to be the case.

 

It's an American system which requires American support. No one can or is even trying to contest that fact.

 

Whatever BS you wish to believe about the 'special relationship' the fact is that the USA is a foreign country which will always put its interest first.

 

No problem with that, it's exactly what the British Empire did when it was top dog, which is why we wound up with the nickname 'Perfidious Albion'.

 

Do you understand the way a debate works?

 

People give their opposing points of view and attempt to reach a mutual conclusion.

 

Professor Willett was giving his view, which doesn't hold true as he was leaving out some fairly vital facts, such as the overall dependence upon the Americans for the continued operation of the missiles.

 

At item 74 Dan Plesch argued the opposite when he declared that the system " failed the 1940 requirement " ( an ability to be used in situations of extreme national emergency when the UK was alone and isolated ).

 

When even the people such as Commodore Tim Hare who are arguing that it is independent are having to add qualifiers to their claim you have to see they are stretching the definition of independent way beyond an acceptable point.

 

Trident is not truly independent.