It’s not impossible to imagine a scenario where the US slips into isolationism and reduces its commitment to NATO

Aye we can imagine anything we like the issue is how realistic is it

The worlds super power becoming isolationist is incredibly un;likely. Its just not going to happen in the next 30-40 years. More likely to battle [ economically/diplomatically/politically with places like china to be the number one than just stop trying a and hand back their “empire”

gives us a reasonable chance of holding on to what we acquired over the last two centuries.

So without nukes we would be overthrown – by whom exactly? Oh and how exactly? Its also a bit much to think that if someone tries to invade us our first response will be to nuke them to the stone age.

Or to put it another way – if we put the stick down lots of other bullies are going to try and take our dinner money.

There are not that many nuclear powers – who exactly is going to invade or do this to us?
France? USA? Pakistan and India for the sins of the empire? Russia because it wants a war with NATO?
Its just so unlikely.

The worlds super power becoming isolationist is incredibly unlikely

😆

Nice playing about with the figures to try and exaggerate them using inflation when everyone has been using current prices to discuss cost for several years. On that basis, the channel tunnel cost less than the Olympics

Far more detailed analysis on costs here:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06526/SN06526.pdf

to try and exaggerate them using inflation

Indeed trying to give a better more accurate figure is always an exaggeration and assuming there will be no inflationary costs between now and 2060 is the far more credible approach 😯

C’mon be fair ninfan the figure is clearly going to be larger than figure that does not include inflation and everyone has to accept that the non inflationary figure is going to underestimate costs. The more cynical amongst us will be thinking that is why they and you have argued its a better measure.

I like this gem from your more accurate paper

Uprating these costs in line with the Treasury’s GDP deflator for the period 2006/07 to
2013/14 gives an overall estimate, in 2013/14 prices, of £17.5bn-£23.4bn for the overall
programme, including £12.9 – £16.4bn for the submarines.

That will be the submarines the procurement minister has just said will cost £25 billion

Nice cartoon bit it has failed to convince me the US of A is about to embark on isolationism and we used a commonwealth army to fight them alone – not exactly very isolationist but hey you scribble

There are not that many nuclear powers

At this moment in time.

FTFY

You’re trying to find a discrepancy that simply isn’t there Junky

Heres the Q&A the newspaper has reported on:

Q Asked by Crispin Blunt(Reigate)[N] Asked on: 15 October 2015
Ministry of DefenceTrident12151
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his Department’s latest estimate is of (a) the whole life programme cost of the Successor programme, (b) capital costs associated with (i) submarine acquisition, (ii) Trident missile renewal and (iii) basing facilities, (c) the running and support costs of the Successor fleet and associated capability to protect and sustain it, (d) all future costs associated with the Atomic Weapons Establishment maintaining a capability to maintain an on-going nuclear warhead design capability and (e) decommissioning costs.

A Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne Answered on: 23 October 2015
The 2014 update to parliament set out an estimate for the Successor submarine acquisition of around £25 billion, based on a four boat solution, spread over some 25 years. These estimates are currently being refreshed to inform the Comprehensive Spending Review and Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Once the new fleet of SSBNs come into service, we expect that the in-service costs of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which include the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, basing and disposals, will be similar to the current system, at around six per cent of the defence budget.

While we have no plans to replace the current Trident D5 missile, we are participating with our US partners in a programme to extend the current life to the 2060s. The estimated cost is around £250 million.
Grouped Questions: 12152

My bold!

2014 update to parliament:

In terms of the procurement costs of the Successor Submarine, and taking into account currently planned and future SEPP efficiencies, we expect to remain within the 2006 White Paper initial estimates of £11-14Bn (at 2006 prices).

again, my bold

2015 updated paper: (the one I linked to)

Current forecast costs for the successor programme remain within the estimates initially set down in the 2006 White Paper, i.e. £15-20bn for the overall programme, including £11-14bn for the successor platform, £2bn to £3bn for the warhead and £2bn to £3bn for the infrastructure (2006/2007 prices). This was reaffirmed in the 2014 Update to Parliament report.

and again, my bold.

The pretence of the newspaper article was that the cost estimate of trident had grown – the parliamentary answer it was based on quite specifically undermines this, and shows that the cost prediction remains unchanged

I am really not trying to find anything but I am happy to concede my error due to some costs having oncosts and some not[ or just my fault if you prefer].
Still at least we can both agree its reasonable to not use inflation and also factor in future savings from a programme when making a better estimate and not include running costs at all.

Just out if interest I am pleased to see you are confident the public sector can deliver this on budget 😉

Not even i think that

can anyone explain why we cant keep the existing stuff

They can’t keep changing their minds about ‘Cat and Trap’ on a submarine 😆

they are getting old and will be past their serviceable life – no idea what the cost would be to keep them going.

Trident missiles are ageing, the propellant cracks (solid rockets) and may explode during he burn phase because of this. The beryllium/tritium pits or equivalent in the fission stage of the nuke also go off, half life etc. The lithium deuteride fusion stage should be ok or recyclable. The electronics will also age, electrolytic capacitors have a finite life and any inductors will have a number of on off cycles before they start burning out.

Personally I’m all for renewal, when I’m watching that mushroom cloud rising over Gatwick I’ll be hoping that however launched it is having a miserable day.

Pointless weapon…who seriously would press the button that would kill millions for the sake of a few tosser politicians?

I’m for weapons but let’s be honest there is no point having these and ones that costs this much!

Jez

Personally I’m all for renewal, when I’m watching that mushroom cloud rising over Gatwick North Yorkshire I’ll be hoping that however launched it is having a miserable day.

What he said.

Pointless weapon…who seriously would press the button that would kill millions for the sake of a few tosser politicians?

Hardly, the point is it will never be used because the warheads and their delivery system guarantee unacceptable losses to any potential attack.

With more countries developing ICBM’s and nuclear warheads there will be more parties at the Mexican stand off.

It’s the old Irish saying that sums up the logic of renewing it: “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

was it bollocks Irish. It was Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm139.html

I preferred the work of Eisenhower:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
…

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Why don’t we buy some French ones? Cheaper than the US and quicker to sort out warranty issues as we’ve got common consumer rules.

That would be no use. Just as we needed to fire them, they’d all go on strike and demand EU subsidy

konabunny: I stand corrected. It was an Irish prof that first told it to me, so I assumed it was a regional saying. Every day’s a school day. 🙂

Pointless weapon…who seriously would press the button that would kill millions for the sake of a few tosser politicians?

Quite a few examples of millions being killed by tossers throughout history unfortunately.

Just because it doesn’t seem rational and realistic doesn’t make it unlikely. I’ll not be surprised to see the use of nuclear weapons in my lifetime, especially as the availability of the technology becomes more widespread.

Personally I’m all for renewal, when I’m watching that mushroom cloud rising over Gatwick I’ll be hoping that however launched it is having a miserable day.

I really despair sometimes.

I’ve said it before… If we ever find ourselves in a position where any of our leaders might possibly launch a nuclear strike, our job is to hang them from a lamppost. As a counterstrike it’s worthless, as a first strike it’s suicide. And once you accept that, you realise that it’s worthless as a deterrant too, because everyone else knows that as a counterstrike it’s worthless and as a first strike it’s suicide.

We’ll persist with the lie that we need it to protect ourselves, and just quietly ignore all the nuclear-free countries getting on with their lives.

oldnpastit – Member

And then assuming that the inflation in Trident maintenance costs will go up at the same rate as GDP growth (2.48%) because, well, reasons.

I think you’ve misunderstood- GDP growth is relevant because it provides the baseline for defence spending, Cameron’s committed to 2% of GDP. So it’s not that Trident maintenance increases at that rate, but that the proportion of GDP is dependent on it.

If we ever find ourselves in a position where any of our leaders might possibly launch a nuclear strike, our job is to hang them from a lamppost.

By accepting a situation where we the tax payers fund these weapons and give authority to our leaders to use them, we are indeed in that position.

I find it bizarre that whilst the vast majority of the world’s population just want a quiet, pleasant life, we repeatedly vote in politicians who are willing to go to war.

I find it bizarre that whilst the vast majority of the world’s population just want a quiet, pleasant life, we repeatedly vote in politicians who are willing to go to war.

Obviously. If we voted in some pacifists who disarmed us we’d end up slaves. Or just dead.

OP no it’s a gazillion trillion billion. Similar to the amount tax campaigners think they can claim back from tax dodgers. The original inflated “it will cost £100bn” hasn’t gained any real traction for the anti campaigners so they’ve come up with a bigger number

Jambalaya – £100 billion is a bargain considering that by the same accounting rules (total lifetime cost at current value) a grit bin at the end of the street would cost over £7500

in fact, all those saying that spending all that money on the NHS would make a real difference, ought to remember that by the same gesture, the NHS (even if it stays the same size it is at the moment) would cost somewhere around £ 3,680,000,000,000 😯

(figures corrected to account for 32 year rather than 25 year cost basis)

Except that’s only true if you’re up against another nuclear nation. If you’re up against a nation which has disarmed because they’ve decided it’s worthless as a deterrent on that basis, then everything changes…

If you’re up against a nation which has disarmed because they’ve decided it’s worthless as a deterrent on that basis, then everything changes…

So, what, the real use of Trident is to threaten to incinerate millions of civilians in a country who can’t even retaliate?

What on Earth does that make us?

Safe 😈

Ignorance isn’t safety.

Safe

Only if you’ve never heard of asymmetric warfare.

We’re always ignorant – we could be at war with the USA next week (disease, failing crops, USA invades Canada, who knows?) – we’re a hell of a lot safer with Nukes than without them.

Only if you’ve never heard of asymmetric warfare.

Would we be safe from asymmetric warfare without nukes? Do you think that a 6% bigger conventional army/navy/air force would make any difference?

You lot are thinking too much coz the govt is spending that money to generate employments …

bencooper – Member
So, what, the real use of Trident is to threaten to incinerate millions of civilians in a country who can’t even retaliate?

Yes, that is the purpose.

What on Earth does that make us?

Normal.

bencooper – Member
Only if you’ve never heard of asymmetric warfare.

Worry about that when it happens.

Nope, you’ve completely missed the point.

we’re a hell of a lot safer with Nukes than without them

Where’s your control? Where’s your country of a similar size, GDP etc which doesn’t have nukes and has been invaded by the Russkies or whatever?

Nope, you’ve completely missed the point.

What’s the point?

Where’s your control? Where’s your country of a similar size, GDP etc which doesn’t have nukes and has been invaded by the Russkies or whatever?

Well, I could happily point to one of the only countries that has ever voluntarily & unilaterally disarmed

and has just been invaded by Russia 😀

I find it bizarre that whilst the vast majority of the world’s population just want a quiet, pleasant life, we repeatedly vote in politicians who are willing to go to war.

I want a nice and quiet life, however not all the world does. In the end of the day I’d vote in a government that would consider and not rule out going to war for the right reasons.
The world is a long way from being a nice friendly place, just ask those bordering Russia.

bencooper – Member

we’re a hell of a lot safer with Nukes than without them

Where’s your control? Where’s your country of a similar size, GDP etc which doesn’t have nukes and has been invaded by the Russkies or whatever? [/quote]
Are the Russians good guys or bad guys? 😯

To prevent somebody else threatening to incinerate millions of civilians in a country who can’t even retaliate.

To prevent somebody else threatening to incinerate millions of civilians in a country who can’t even retaliate.

Yeah, but what on Earth does that make them?

Well, I could happily point to one of the only countries that has ever voluntarily & unilaterally disarmed

and has just been invaded by Russia

And I could point to loads of countries who never had nukes and haven’t been.

So are we saying disarmament is the dangerous thing? Are we at the stage where we can’t get rid of the nukes because of the number of people we’ve pissed off?

To prevent somebody else threatening to incinerate millions of civilians in a country who can’t even retaliate.

I don’t want retaliation. In those last seconds, before the shockwave hits, I don’t want to think that my government is about to do the same to millions more innocent civilians.

Russia?