[Closed] Trident Renewal Now £167Bn - apparently.

That would buy alot of useful stuff; like improved healthcare, education, housing, haribo...

Massive public project in increasing cost shocker?

Money well spent to combat the threats we face in the 21st century

Oh... hang on a minute... that was the 20th, wasn't it?

Oh well.... more austerity it is then

Couldn't we buy something cheaper? Chinease nukes?

Here's an idea - we could give each of the tory front bench £10Bn each to just leave the country and never come back.

Those numbers look a bit bogus.

They're taking the estimate of the running costs at around 6% of the annual defense budget.

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.

And apart from that it's entirely fact free. It would be great if there were historical figures for comparison, but they're not there.

Trident may or may not be good value for money or a sensible way to defend the country, but I'm not sure that article helps you work out the answer either way.

I'm sure the hookers and coke dealers in Barrow (and Helensburgh 😈 ) won't be pleased if it gets cancelled though.

[quote=wanmankylung ]Here's an idea - we could give each of the tory front bench £10Bn each to just leave the country and never come back.

Sadly there are more where they came from

And apart from that it's entirely fact free.

Ok then go ahead?

Ok then go ahead?

Sorry, go ahead and what? I could make up some facts - made-up facts are always the best ones anyway.

Couldn't we buy something cheaper?

could probably go back to conventional air launched standoff or even free fall for kind of money or just tell every one we bought a load of nuclear tipped cruise missiles for our attack subs and trouser the cash.

[quote=Klunk ]or just tell every one we bought a load nuclear tipped cruise missiles for our attack subs and trouser the cash.

shhhhh

Couldn't we buy something cheaper?

Isn't the problem that nuclear missile delivery systems that can't easily be destroyed by foreigners are just very expensive. All the alternatives are also eye wateringly expensive.

sile delivery systems that can't easily be destroyed by foreigners are just very expensive. All the alternatives are also eye wateringly expensive.[/quote

Yup, any savings are minimal (relative to the huge cost being discussed) and much moar vulnerable

 

[quote=oldnpastit opined]Those numbers look a bit bogus.
They're taking the estimate of the running costs at around 6% of the annual defense budget.
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.
And apart from that it's entirely fact free. It would be great if there were historical figures for comparison, but they're not there.
Trident may or may not be good value for money or a sensible way to defend the country, but I'm not sure that article helps you work out the answer either way.

I have no idea how you read the article and thought those figures were bogus or fact free- yes there are assumptions so the debate is whether those assumptions are reasonable
-I have emboldened the main source for them if that helps you

In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, [b]Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne [/b]said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds.

He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry.

"My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.

"The successor Trident program is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defense budget of its predecessor ... The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible."
His figure was based on a presumption that Britain will spend 2 percent of its annual gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, as Cameron's government has promised.

It also uses existing official government and International Monetary Fund figures, and an assumption of GDP growth of an annual average of 2.48 percent between 2020 and 2060.

Using the same figures, a Reuters calculation came to the same sum of 167 billion pounds.

FWIW I get just over 68 billion running costs with no growth in spending or inflationary costs. CLearly the figure will be more than this.

Sorry, go ahead and what? I could make up some facts - made-up facts are always the best ones anyway.

Ah! I was hoping you knew otherwise. I guess not.

I really don't get the "we absolutely must have a nuclear deterrent" thing. it to me always seems to be delivered as a reflex reaction, usually with absolutely no explanation or reasoning. Like it's been drummed in to people to believe that they really do need it, the world has moved on the Cold War is over.

Plenty of large developed countries in the world get on perfectly well without them.
If some nutter does decide to press the button then we're pretty much all dead either way so what difference would it make to us? We'll be dead/ dying. If it's happening the USA will be getting involved too so what's the point of us having a dozen to their 2000?
We're members of NPT, why are we building more!
I just really struggle to understand the point of them.

That's a hell of a lot of money to plug the deficit and help the nhs with.

We can buy nukes or invest elsewhere in the miltiary. Those are the options. Fantasies about spending it on health or schools or to reduce the deficit are well wide of the mark.

I wish we lived in a nuclear weapon free world. We don't.
So for me we need Trident (or equivalent) to act as a "don't mess with us" deterrent. It's the old Irish saying that sums up the logic of renewing it: "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

it's all to do with keeping the seat at the big boys table.

Or why not go for the Dr Strangelove solution and build a bomb soo massive/polluting/radioactive and poisonous that detonation would render the planet uninhabitable for a 1000 years. Could keep it at chequers.

Who are we supposed to be defending ourselves against, looks in metro and cant see anyone offering a fight.

Save the cash and spend it on cycling and health prevention

health prevention

Prevention from radiation poisoning?

[quote=CHB ]So for me we need Trident (or equivalent) to act as a "don't mess with us" deterrent.

Yet we do still get messed with. Who exactly are we deterring?

It's as Klunk says, the discussion becomes much simpler once you realise that. In a way 6% of defence spending doesn't seem that huge an amount to maintain that.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick".

Far better to just have a pan european deterrent system controlled by the EU or NATO 😉

FOr those who think we really need to lest someone invade us or nuke us - lets be honest we all rate that risk as bloody remote but , to be fair, we have been invaded once n the last millennia

I get the argument i just think the risk is so small its really not worth spending all that cash on a system of constant readiness.

[quote=aracer ]
Who exactly are we deterring?

Any national threat which may arise in the next 30 years or so.

that would nuke us bit for the fact we have nukes ourselves at sea in submarines.... We need TOny to write this sort of dossier 😛

aliens, the conservative party,single speeders,foreigners, who

Junkyard, the dodgy/illegal/futile deployment of our brave military since 2003 is a national shame (Tony Blair for the Hague!). But Trident for me is a different argument, it's about being able to have a shared finger on the MAD button. It's a horrendous proposition, but in the world of Putin and other despots that have not even risen to prominence yet, Trident is the ultimate deterrent against the deployment of a weapon that already exists by a future nutter.

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.

29erKeith - Member
I really don't get the "we absolutely must have a nuclear deterrent" thing. it to me always seems to be delivered as a reflex reaction, usually with absolutely no explanation or reasoning. Like it's been drummed in to people to believe that they really do need it, the world has moved on the Cold War is over.

Plenty of large developed countries in the world get on perfectly well without them.
If some nutter does decide to press the button then we're pretty much all dead either way so what difference would it make to us? We'll be dead/ dying. If it's happening the USA will be getting involved too so what's the point of us having a dozen to their 2000?
We're members of NPT, why are we building more!
I just really struggle to understand the point of them.

That's a hell of a lot of money to plug the deficit and help the nhs with.

I hear this argument a lot but unfortunately it's an incredibly naive viewpoint. Many people on this thread seem to be unaware of just how unpopular the UK is in large parts of the world - "the Great Satan" (used interchangeably with the US) to Iran, "the Old Fox" to the remainder of the Middle East, the old colonial power who appropriated swathes of their natural resources to much of the globe.

We're therefore not just a small island in the North Atlantic that no one cares about - we're the world's sixth largest economy with global interests. We achieved this by judicious trading, diplomacy (often involving gunboats) and good old fashioned invasion over the last few centuries so it's hardly surprising that we're not that popular - and that's not just with developing countries like Iran and North Korea but also old strategic rivals (and fellow nuclear powers) like Russia and China. Our involvement in recent conflicts as the prime ally of the US probably hasn't helped either but actually in my experience it's our colonial actions that the rest of the world really remembers.

So why retain Trident? It's not impossible to imagine a scenario where the US slips into isolationism and reduces its commitment to NATO - particularly given that the remaining allies aren't meeting their 2% of GDP on defence spending commitments. An independent British nuclear deterrent acts as an insurance policy against another World War starting in Europe and (combined with effective conventional forces) gives us a reasonable chance of holding on to what we acquired over the last two centuries.

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.

So which of those bullies you mention would we use nukes against if we don't get our own way? Would we just annihilate the ones who can't strike back with their own, or would we go head to head with the ones which wouldn't even miss the weapons they launched to make the UK an ex-country?

If we want trident, then we should raise taxes to pay for it.

We can't *quite* afford a national health service, AND an adequate transport system, AND an adequate education system, AND etc. AND trident. With the current levels of taxation.

IMHO, the other stuff is necessary, a nuclear deterrent is a 'luxury'.

In terms of threat I don't think Europe has looked more unstable for a long while. Russia on the rise, USA pulling out, middle east very unstable and the austerity and migration crisis causing huge splits in the EU membership.

Trident won't stop everything, but along with good intelligence does give you a good assurance policy.

Aracer: I would be eternally shamed if we ever used Trident in anything other than a retaliation. The idea of nuking other none nuclear countries is a none starter to any civilised country (I hope!). Hiroshima/Nagasaki are exceptions to this IMHO. At the time these two bombs were used, the USA (and the world) was not aware of the full effect of these weapons, so I think they were used as much as a demonstration of force as for any other reason. The fact that America has never used them since (even in Vietnam where the politics were hostile and the enemy viewed as "subhuman") shows that even the USA appreciates that nukes should never be brought into conventional warfare.

we have been invaded [s]once[/s] [b]twice[/b] n the last millennia

the US slips into isolationism

even the USA appreciates that nukes should never be brought into conventional warfare.

[quote=Sandwich ] Given that it's a 'two key system' that we currently have and will no doubt have for the replacement. Our expensive toys won't work if Uncle Sam won't give us the codes/launch clearance.

Where did you get that from ? The trident subs can operate autonomously.

Trident is so autonomous that everything needed to launch it is on the sub. We don't have PAL on the nukes like the US does.

Tin foil hat on, engage JHJ mode.

The software onboard was designed and implemented by whom? Do you think that there isn't a backdoor that the Three Letter Agencies can access? Their record and proposals for computer systems with encryption for the future would indicate that they would not trust HMG with a fully autonomous system.

I suspect that it's compromised and may well not work as advertised if the US is in isolation mode. After all we may decide that THEY are the enemy in the future.

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

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.

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.

The worlds super power becoming isolationist is incredibly unlikely

😆

[img] [/img]

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:

to try and exaggerate them using inflation

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

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
[i]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.[/i]

A Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne Answered on: 23 October 2015
[i]The [b][url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/390185/20141215-Successor_Update_to_Parliament_final.pdf ]2014 update to parliament[/url] [/b]set out an estimate for the Successor submarine acquisition of around £25 billion, based on a four boat solution, [b]spread over some 25 years.[/b] 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[/i]

My bold!

2014 update to parliament:

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

again, my bold

2015 updated paper: (the one I linked to)

[i]Current forecast costs for the successor programme [b]remain within the estimates initially set down in the 2006 White Paper[/b], 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). [b]This was reaffirmed in the 2014 Update to Parliament report[/b].[/i]

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