Scrap Trident

#4
The cost of ICBM is truly enormous. I believe we have to retain a nuclear capability to retain our standing in the world and a seat on the Security Council. is Tomahawk armed with a nuclear warhead a viable option? If Trident is the cheapest and only viable option to maintain our nuclear deterrent, then its a necessary evil, a bit like Council tax.
Yes we are fighting a hugely expensive campaign in Afghanistan, in terms of lives and equipment, and our boys would be better served with the best kit. But we are not America and funds aren't limitless.
A bit short sighted from a small minority of our colleagues in green, but same with us, get rid of Trident, more money for carriers and escorts.
 
#5
angry_mac said:
The cost of ICBM is truly enormous. I believe we have to retain a nuclear capability to retain our standing in the world and a seat on the Security Council. is Tomahawk armed with a nuclear warhead a viable option? If Trident is the cheapest and only viable option to maintain our nuclear deterrent, then its a necessary evil, a bit like Council tax.
Yes we are fighting a hugely expensive campaign in Afghanistan, in terms of lives and equipment, and our boys would be better served with the best kit. But we are not America and funds aren't limitless.
A bit short sighted from a small minority of our colleagues in green, but same with us, get rid of Trident, more money for carriers and escortsquote

Would the money saved be invested elsewhere in RN or would it merely be directed elsewhere outside of the defence budget?
 
#6
I believe that should the government scrap Trident the money saved would not be given to the Navy to fund the carriers nor anything else. Instead I would expect this government to make up all sorts of excuses about the reallocation of funds and then spend money on schools, hospitals, eco-friendly schemes etc which is where its core votes lie.
 

Bawsack

Lantern Swinger
#8
£95 million a year for maintenance and continuing to support Trident submarines, rising to between £106 - £121 Million over the next few years.

Worth every penny IMO
 
#9
Bawsack said:
£95 million a year for maintenance and continuing to support Trident submarines, rising to between £106 - £121 Million over the next few years.

Worth every penny IMO
sounds like a pretty good deal to me, don't get many hospitals for £100m a year.
 

P2000

Lantern Swinger
#10
angry_mac said:
The cost of ICBM is truly enormous. I believe we have to retain a nuclear capability to retain our standing in the world and a seat on the Security Council. is Tomahawk armed with a nuclear warhead a viable option? If Trident is the cheapest and only viable option to maintain our nuclear deterrent, then its a necessary evil, a bit like Council tax.
Yes we are fighting a hugely expensive campaign in Afghanistan, in terms of lives and equipment, and our boys would be better served with the best kit. But we are not America and funds aren't limitless.
A bit short sighted from a small minority of our colleagues in green, but same with us, get rid of Trident, more money for carriers and escorts.
TLAM can be shot down. Trident will get through. If you want to mount a credible deterrent you use SLBMs.

£20 billion saved for the defence budget? Spare me...

Besides, using tabloid calculus, £20 billion over 50 years (life of the Trident replacement) equates to less than £500 million a year. Less than £8.33 a year for every man woman and child.

That's a pretty cheap insurance policy.
 
#11
Mountbatten said the Polaris would be the end of the Royal Navy…

Guess he was right. You can have proper carriers or Bombers, you can't have both from one pot of pennies.
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#12
Trident, and our ability and will to use it, is our insurance against an attack in a world where, as they have recently so carefully demonstrated, we CANNOT rely on our NATO 'allies', particularly if the threat is not also aimed at them.

TLAM is NOT a credible alternative for all sorts of reasons (especially its short range, which even if the target is within reach from sea, limits the sea area that the launching boat can use). TLAM has been debated as an alternative over and over again for decades and always found wanting.

If Trident were scrapped there is no reason to suppose the Treasury would reallocate the funds to other Defence projects, let alone Naval ones.

Don't expect too much from ARRSE, this is all a bit above their heads. The nuclear deterrent replacement now being planned will have to take us into a world far removed from the one we are living in now. The R boats lasted us what? 30 years? The V's to 2030? The next generation of boats may be crewed by some of your great grandchildren.
 
#13
Seaweed said:
Trident, and our ability and will to use it, is our insurance against an attack .............
Contributor Mode

I edited the rest of Seaweeds post so as not to go on so much. I would scrap Trident tomorrow and fit TNW (tactical nulear warheads) to Tomahawk even if not all got thru, these the UK may actually use.

We are the only country in the world who has a Nuclear capability that cannot use it Independently and in the event of use then the USA would have saturated all known targets. There is not a single scenario in the world where UK PLC would launch Trident with out ORDERS from the USA, unlike the French, Chinese, Pakistan's, Indians, Israel, Iran, North Korea or any other tin pot organization who is in possession of a nuclear weapon.

It is not the Bomb I am against it is, IMHO out complete and total lack of Independence.

Nutty
 
#14
Nutty said:
Seaweed said:
Trident, and our ability and will to use it, is our insurance against an attack .............
Contributor Mode

I edited the rest of Seaweeds post so as not to go on so much. I would scrap Trident tomorrow and fit TNW (tactical new warheads) to Tomahawk even if not all got thru, these the UK may actually use.

We are the only country in the world who has a Nuclear capability that cannot use it Independently and in the event of use then the USA would have saturated all known targets. There is not a single scenario in the world where UK PLC would launch Trident with out ORDERS from the USA, unlike the French, Chinese, Pakistan's, Indians, Israel, Iran, North Korea or any other tin pot organization who is in possession of a nuclear weapon.

It is not the Bomb I am against it is, IMHO out complete and total lack of Independence.

Nutty
True dat…


Like it says on the packet 'Property of the United States Navy'
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#18
So if the loan is called in, we're a few short. Then what? Fait accompli I think. What matters is that those who might be deterred, believe we can and will use them.
 
#19
The Trident missile system is an American system. However we have it fitted to RN submarines that are under UK OPCON. The Americans cannot stop us firing and we do not require their permission. Whether the Government would use it independently of the US is another question.
I personally can't envisage a conflict where we would consider the use of Nuclear weapons full stop, let alone independently of the Yanks. But then I don't want to imagine a conflict where they would be used.

To answer the question of whether we replace Trident conclusively you really need a crystal ball. Who's to say what the world situation will be like in 20 or 50 years time? As far as I can see the Generals are basing their assessment on the way things stand today. Fine, today we are very unlikely to use the Trident. Problem is in 20 years we might want to and if we scrap it now we're stuffed. You can't just procure an SSBN and its weapon system at the drop of a hat. We can't procure anything quickly. We decide not to replace Trident now, we will not be able to replace it in the future.


As has been said here and on ARRSE, will we get the money saved it if was scrapped? I doubt it.

In my opinion Trident should be replaced. It, and Polaris before it, have been good insurance policies. To quote someone from ARRSE, "Just because your house hasn't burnt down in 30 years is no reason to cancel your insurance."
 
#20
pompeyexpat said:
..................., "Just because your house hasn't burnt down in 30 years is no reason to cancel your insurance."

Alternatively, you have wasted 30 years of Insurance premiums, perhaps a cheaper policy i.e. TNW capped SSN launched cruise missile would easily suit our need as few target we are interested in, are that far from the sea. No recourse to USA would be required.

Nutty
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
soleil Submariners 18
OSLO Current Affairs 18
Tas-ape The Quarterdeck 19

Similar threads

Latest Threads