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 [s]Gatwick[/s] 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 - MemberAnd 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)
[quote=Northwind ]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.
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 [i]without[/i] 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.
[quote=bencooper ]So, what, the real use of Trident is to threaten to incinerate millions of civilians in a country who can't even retaliate?
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?
Are the Russians good guys or bad guys? 😯
[quote=bencooper ]What's the point?
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 disarmedand 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.
[quote=ninfan ]Yeah, but what on Earth does that make them?
Russia?
[quote=bencooper ]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.
You still seem to be missing the point - check back on NW's game theory, which as I said applies with one nuclear power up against another.
You still seem to be missing the point - check back on NW's game theory, which as I said applies with one nuclear power up against another.
I understand the game theory. The idea is we'll never have to use them. But That's not the only solution to the game - the other solution is not to play.
From a moral standpoint, threatening civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. There's no possible way it can be justified, and "they're doing it to us" is the logic of the playground not that of adults.
bencooper - Member
And I could point to loads of countries who never had nukes and haven't been.
You cannot guarantee that will never happen in future.
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?
You can't get rid of the nukes because you are stuck with it because others have already got them. Even if you get rid of yours others might not so how do you disarm them if you don't have nuke?
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.
You are already dead so your opinion is insignificant.
bencooper - Member
I understand the game theory. The idea is we'll never have to use them. But That's not the only solution to the game - the other solution is not to play.
With a "gun poiting at your head" you play game or else ... 😈
From a moral standpoint, threatening civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. There's no possible way it can be justified, and "they're doing it to us" is the logic of the playground not that of adults.
Moral has nothing to do with nuke. If you nuke you nuke everything.
You cannot guarantee that will never happen in future.
Nothing about the future is certain - eventually the sun will explode, and then it'll all be meaningless.
But until then, better to be nice to as many people as possible, and that means using £167bn to build schools and hospitals and help with overseas aid, rather than using it to threaten to incinerate innocents.
Thats right, a 1% bigger NHS will transform society!
Question for you Ben - why is it OK for other countries to threaten to incinerate civilians, but not us?
[quote=bencooper ]I understand the game theory. The idea is we'll never have to use them. But That's not the only solution to the game - the other solution is not to play.
If you're referring to the Wargames quote, then that's a different sort of not playing - not playing when you have the option of playing. Not having the option of playing isn't a winning move if somebody else does have the option. This is also game theory stuff - it's a prisoners dilemma thing.
From a moral standpoint, threatening civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. There's no possible way it can be justified, and "they're doing it to us" is the logic of the playground not that of adults.
The trouble is, "they" might well not be adults, and again the game theory says that the best thing is to have some way of preventing them from using theirs even if you have no intention of using yours. Because the game theory means that if we have them, "they" know that they can't use theirs, so we never have to use ours.
bencooper - Member
Nothing about the future is certain - eventually the sun will explode, and then it'll all be meaningless.
Don't know about the sun exploding but I bet the probability of people with destructive weapons killing each other is definitely higher ...
But until then, better to be nice to as many people as possible, and that means using £167bn to build schools and hospitals and help with overseas aid, rather than using it to threaten to incinerate innocents.
Yes, that's a lot of money ... the alternative is perhaps having no say in international matters.
Yes, that's a lot of money ... the alternative is perhaps having no say in international matters.
Deal.
We have no say at the moment - we've just spent the last week prostituting ourselves to the Chinese. It's laughably pathetic the way the UK keeps trying to pretend to still be a superpower.
IF having a say in international matters means we get to join in on the next Middle-Eastern bombing mission, I think we're well out of that. Because our interventions in international affairs have been so successful in the past.
chewkw - Memberthe alternative is perhaps having no say in international matters.
Oh go on, humour us, expand on how nuclear weapons gives us a say in international matters, and is the only thing that does so.
ninfan - MemberWell, I could happily point to one of the only countries that has ever voluntarily & unilaterally disarmed
and has just been invaded by Russia
Aye, and we'll certainly be carefully watching our land border with russia. Ah no wait, ireland. But they must have nukes, right?
Because if they don't listen to us we'll bomb the bastards