Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
P J

Money well spent?

Recommended Posts

It appears that the cost of upgrading Trident is double estimates and will cost roughly £167 Billion.  For something that is designed never to be used.  I can think of many better ways to use all that money.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-replacing-trident-is-167bn-double-previous-estimates-calculations-suggest-a6708126.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a cheaper Chinese model powered by an elastic band that operates up & down the Ship Canal & armed with uranium coated dried peas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a cheaper Chinese model powered by an elastic band that operates up & down the Ship Canal & armed with uranium coated dried peas.

I would back their missiles against ours Davy,  we are like a yapping spaniel around their ankles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it surprising that NATO countries can not get together and decided what country should do what.

 

I get the need for the nuclear deterrent but then wonder how much of a deterrent it is  as the USA have got many nuclear warheads that are probably enough of a deterrent.

 

I also think that all NATO countries should commit to spending an equal share or leave. It is unfair that only the USA, UK, Poland, Greece and Estonia meet the alliance target of 2% GDP spending on defense. Countries like Canada, Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg fall far short of the target with Luxembourg spending only 0.5% of their GDP on defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why upgrade Trident, during an austerity driven period where vital services have been pared to the bone and living conditions for many are being made worse.  For instance,  £167billion would fund Osbournes tax credit cuts for about 40 years. Do the existing Trident missiles no longer work?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should share the nuclear weapons out to all those countries that don't have any can get some.... Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,...maybe even ISIS could get a few. Then when it is an even playing field like all the anti nuclear types want we can see how long things last :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by building more nuclear missiles and making obselete nuclear missiles this then lessens the chance of other nations getting their hands on them?  ISIS aren't a country by the way and Afghanistan and Iraq are  a million years off being able to develop their own .  Iran aren't but they would be if the present members of the nuclear club hadn't made the technology available to them.  Replacing Trident is stupid, unnecessary, immoral and wrong headed.  What use will they be against ISIS Baz if they got a nuke.  We would all be dead before we fired a shot in retaliation.  Still it gives idiots the ability to use the phrase "nuke 'em" as a catchall answer to any event that offends them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The missiles are very complicated pieces of kit which are packed with things that can go dangerously wrong, they spend years in a cold, damp launch tube underwater when a snuggle blanket might be better, I think that spending money on their upkeep is quite a good idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...