Replacing Trident

  Quickbeam 06:40 30 Jul 2010

Looks like having to be paid out of the MOD budget click here

But as we all know, by the time it's delivered, it will be much more than the quoted £20 billion. I think that maybe it's a tactic to put off replacement for 10 years or so until we are in a better financial state. By which time the government (me & you & a dog named Boo) will pay for it. I can't see the MOD ordering it when they are already overstretched with their overseas obligations.

  zzzz999 07:35 30 Jul 2010

Well there's a £20 billion saving right away.

  morddwyd 07:44 30 Jul 2010

This would be more than half of the total defence budget.

Wasn't there something about putting all your eggs in one basket?

Who would go in and secure the ground after you have dropped your nukes?

No matter what methods are used to weaken the enemy, ground has to be taken and secured by ground troops, Kipling's "poor bloody infantry", the grunt on the ground with a gun.

They and their equipment will have to be paid for, as will the means of getting them there and maintaining them.

  daytimers82 09:29 30 Jul 2010

why cant the costs be freezed, at the quoted price rather let inflation and other factors make spiral out of control. do we need trident has the cold finished or is it still in limbo

  egapup 10:03 30 Jul 2010

Seen a program the other day about building a ordinary nuke sub and it was equiped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, i thought these missiles were capable of carrying atomic warheads, so why bother with Trident???

  morddwyd 15:02 30 Jul 2010

Tomahawk is a guided missile, not an ICBM.

It can be shot down.

  john bunyan 21:00 30 Jul 2010

The problem is that who knows what threats will we face in 15 - 20 years time? (? Iran, N Korea, Hopefully not China or Pakistan). The lead time is such that if we want to retain the deterrent we have to plan it now. I am not sure why it is we cannot share with France to have one "bomber" S/M at sea rather than one each. With regret I think we do need a strategic weapons system, but it should be paid for outside the normal MOD budget.

  Strawballs 23:09 30 Jul 2010

If it is replaced it will only be with like for like so if it is still working why bother as part of this government was pushing in their manifesto during the last election.

  Kevscar1 03:58 31 Jul 2010

Bows and Arrows still work so do muzzle loading muskets, are you saying the infantry should be carrying them.

  mole44 05:09 31 Jul 2010

Remember Alexander Litvinenko,poisened by Plutonium 210,the plotonium came over on a British airways aircraft.So there we have it those submarines shure did stop that nuclear attack into our country.I think tridend is a big boys case of "measwell",you`ve got nuclear weapens and big submarines "me as well".

  Kevscar1 06:47 31 Jul 2010

If you can't tell the difference between a 20 KT nuclear missile and a couple grams of Plutonium 210 you have big problems.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Honor 9 Lite review

How Social Media has Propelled Political Graphic Design and Art in the Last Decade

The best kids apps for iPhone & iPad 2018

HomePod d’Apple : date de sortie, prix et fiche technique