P J Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Might be cheaper as a result of this Chinese trade deal ? !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 I don't think we are buying them off China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Could be a cheaper Chinese model powered by an elastic band that operates up & down the Ship Canal & armed with uranium coated dried peas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Think they'd sell us boomerang ICBs ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 I think the boomerang is Australian. Such meaningful contributions, not like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 The blue touch paper is degrading PJ. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Perhaps they can only blow the world to bits once and the new one can destroy it twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 If they are that dangerous I think making them is stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.