BREAKING - MPs vote to renew Trident weapons system
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Drewski
The vast majority of that money goes to things that are, on the surface, ridiculously simple. Again, think of the lifespan of the subs. Think of all the things that go into keeping them running. Each sub has at least 2 full crews. So we're talking roughly 1000 men and women. Let's say the average wage is £40k (which is a very conservative guess given the bonuses on offer to the dolphins, many will be on a lot more). That means each year the wage bill alone is £40,000,000. Multiply that by 40 years.
You see how quickly that enormous figure actually gets quite small?
You see how quickly that enormous figure actually gets quite small?
Okay, and why exactly would we be paying these wages regardless of the renewal of Trident? The jobs won't be there...
Original post by Galaxie501
Its called nuclear deterrence - similiar to M.A.D.
Aren`t they the same thing ?Isn`t mad the reason behind nuclear deterrance ?
Original post by thegreatwhale
or y'know we could spend a bit on the NHS ffs
NHS budget 2015: £116bn
Cost of submarine replacement, with 40yr lifespan: £31bn.
So we could get ~4 months of the NHS, or 40 years protection for the country.
Original post by Plagioclase
Okay, and why exactly would we be paying these wages regardless of the renewal of Trident? The jobs won't be there...
Yeah, because the RN would never redeploy people, that's just crazy...
If you think it's a bad idea to keep our nuclear weapons you clearly haven't learned any lessons from the Russia-Ukrainian conflict 🙄
Original post by Drewski
Yeah, because the RN would never redeploy people, that's just crazy...
Call me naive but if we binned trident I'd hope some of that cash would go into more Astute subs for the navy. Naturally taking some of those crews over.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Polka_Specs
Tell me , when we did we last nuclear weapons ?
There is a concept known as mutually-assured destruction.
It's also a deterrence to those even without nukes.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Kadak
Aren`t they the same thing ?Isn`t mad the reason behind nuclear deterrance ?
Pretty much, but M.A.D is more of a specific cold war policy term. No idea what they call it now.
Original post by Kadak
Aren`t they the same thing ?Isn`t mad the reason behind nuclear deterrance ?
No.... Mutually Assured Destruction is a doctrine of Military Strategy used mostly by the US and Nato, nuclear deterrence is simply the the idea having the weapons would stop someone attacking, whether that is MAD, preemptive strikes, retaliation ability, tactical usage etc etc.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
Original post by DanB1991
No.... Mutually Assured Destruction is a doctrine of Military Strategy used mostly by the US and Nato, nuclear deterrence is simply the the idea having the weapons would stop someone attacking, whether that is MAD, preemptive strikes, retaliation ability, tactical usage etc etc.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
And the USSR were certainly misguided in thinking that
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DanB1991
No.... Mutually Assured Destruction is a doctrine of Military Strategy used mostly by the US and Nato, nuclear deterrence is simply the the idea having the weapons would stop someone attacking, whether that is MAD, preemptive strikes, retaliation ability, tactical usage etc etc.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
Alright,ty.
Original post by DanB1991
No.... Mutually Assured Destruction is a doctrine of Military Strategy used mostly by the US and Nato, nuclear deterrence is simply the the idea having the weapons would stop someone attacking, whether that is MAD, preemptive strikes, retaliation ability, tactical usage etc etc.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
MAD for example presumes both sides understand, believe and follow the doctrine. NATO for example fully supported the MAD idea, despite having post fallout plans. The USSR by comparison felt that not only could they survive a nuclear war relatively intact, but they could follow it up with a relatively convention war following the depletion of most of their nuclear stock.
One thing that still consfuses me though is your USSR example.If the USSR believe that they could survive a nuclear war,doesn`t that mean nuclear deterrence won`t work as well as MAD ?If so,it does really sound like there is a big difference between the two concepts
.The case for Nuclear weapons can be compared to the case for chemical warfare. We have decided that the latter is so terrible that we would never use it. Today's nuclear weapons are many, many times more powerful than those used in WW2 by the US.
In the real world are we ever going to use them - no. There is absolutely no scenario where it would be sensible / possible to use them.
1) Are we going to use them first? Perhaps in a Syria / Iraq / Crimea / WW2 / Vietnam situation? No, because the fall out would be horrendous and contaminate whole tracts of land world wide - land belonging to friend and foe, with the accompanying diseases- the fall out would not be / could not be controllable. This is one of the reasons the US hasn't used them again / we don't allow testing out in the open. It could also lead to scenario 3 below.
2) Are we going to use them second- ie when a hostile country has already sent a nuclear bomb to us / nuclear bombed us? No because to do so would compound the problems of contamination, no, because we would already have such enormous awful problems to deal with to be virtually beyond survival so retaliation would have no point.
3) Are we going to retaliate anyway starting a nuclear free for all maybe? No, because if by a miracle scenarios 1 and 2 haven't already ended civilisation as we know it, 3 certainly would. There would be nowhere on earth safe to live. Any survivors would be rapidly dying of radiation contamination, most all land would be unusable, there would be no functioning infrastructure, there would be no possibility of ever recovering.
So why are we continuing to spend so much money on nuclear weapons? which we can never use. We have so many useful things to spend money on.
In the real world are we ever going to use them - no. There is absolutely no scenario where it would be sensible / possible to use them.
1) Are we going to use them first? Perhaps in a Syria / Iraq / Crimea / WW2 / Vietnam situation? No, because the fall out would be horrendous and contaminate whole tracts of land world wide - land belonging to friend and foe, with the accompanying diseases- the fall out would not be / could not be controllable. This is one of the reasons the US hasn't used them again / we don't allow testing out in the open. It could also lead to scenario 3 below.
2) Are we going to use them second- ie when a hostile country has already sent a nuclear bomb to us / nuclear bombed us? No because to do so would compound the problems of contamination, no, because we would already have such enormous awful problems to deal with to be virtually beyond survival so retaliation would have no point.
3) Are we going to retaliate anyway starting a nuclear free for all maybe? No, because if by a miracle scenarios 1 and 2 haven't already ended civilisation as we know it, 3 certainly would. There would be nowhere on earth safe to live. Any survivors would be rapidly dying of radiation contamination, most all land would be unusable, there would be no functioning infrastructure, there would be no possibility of ever recovering.
So why are we continuing to spend so much money on nuclear weapons? which we can never use. We have so many useful things to spend money on.
Original post by Plagioclase
Except (1) we're talking about additional costs not base costs and (2) the NHS isn't a system designed to destroy civilization.
No, we're not. Your ridiculously high figure is a lifetime cost for the whole system, not "additional costs".
Original post by Plagioclase
It's a figure that is a few percentage points higher than the government's £179bn estimate which is almost certainly an underestimate.
The Government has not made that estimate. That estimate was made by Crispin Blunt MP.
Original post by Polka_Specs
lets spend it on a defense system which is never used and ill equipped to deal with modern day terrorism.
"This spanner is ill-equipped for drilling a hole in the wall, let's get rid of it"
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jammy Duel
There was a rather interesting BBC 4 documentary where they went through both British and USSR secret documents concerning fears and plans regarding a nuclear war right up to the collapse of the soviet union.
While they only slightly touched on the USA and NATO global plans (they mostly concentrated on europe), the individuals from Britain and Nato interviewed almost unanimously noted that not only was the USSR better prepared for a nuclear conflict in hindsight, but that USSR doctrine also pretty much made MAD useless. If the Bombs had fell I personally feel that the USSR would of been the ultimate victors. Just look at Balaklava and many other 'Bunkers' the USSR had in comparison with NATO's. Then add widescale and cheap equipment designed to survive nuclear impact from as close as 300m (T-55) produced as early as the mid/late 50's.
Original post by Kadak
One thing that still consfuses me though is your USSR example.If the USSR believe that they could survive a nuclear war, doesn`t that mean nuclear deterrence won`t work as well as MAD ?If so,it does really sound like there is a big difference between the two concepts .
.IIRC the USSR's idea was any resulting war would be so devastating that your opponent would not risk such a conflict. Nuclear deterrence is multiple theories and doctrines, while MAD is a specific Nuclear Deterrent doctrine.
The problem with MAD is it relies on both sides believing in the doctrine. Post Cold War it turned out because the USSR didn't believe in MAD, it's post nuclear strike plans were much more in depth, thorough and in theory long lasting. By comparison they had planned pretty much a full invasion of Europe post fallout (including occupation plans), by comparison NATO were more concerned with how to keep control of their countries and staving off the initial invasion.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by pickup
The case for Nuclear weapons can be compared to the case for chemical warfare. We have decided that the latter is so terrible that we would never use it. Today's nuclear weapons are many, many times more powerful than those used in WW2 by the US.
In the real world are we ever going to use them - no. There is absolutely no scenario where it would be sensible / possible to use them.
1) Are we going to use them first? Perhaps in a Syria / Iraq / Crimea / WW2 / Vietnam situation? No, because the fall out would be horrendous and contaminate whole tracts of land world wide - land belonging to friend and foe, with the accompanying diseases- the fall out would not be / could not be controllable. This is one of the reasons the US hasn't used them again / we don't allow testing out in the open. It could also lead to scenario 3 below.
2) Are we going to use them second- ie when a hostile country has already sent a nuclear bomb to us / nuclear bombed us? No because to do so would compound the problems of contamination, no, because we would already have such enormous awful problems to deal with to be virtually beyond survival so retaliation would have no point.
3) Are we going to retaliate anyway starting a nuclear free for all maybe? No, because if by a miracle scenarios 1 and 2 haven't already ended civilisation as we know it, 3 certainly would. There would be nowhere on earth safe to live. Any survivors would be rapidly dying of radiation contamination, most all land would be unusable, there would be no functioning infrastructure, there would be no possibility of ever recovering.
So why are we continuing to spend so much money on nuclear weapons? which we can never use. We have so many useful things to spend money on.
In the real world are we ever going to use them - no. There is absolutely no scenario where it would be sensible / possible to use them.
1) Are we going to use them first? Perhaps in a Syria / Iraq / Crimea / WW2 / Vietnam situation? No, because the fall out would be horrendous and contaminate whole tracts of land world wide - land belonging to friend and foe, with the accompanying diseases- the fall out would not be / could not be controllable. This is one of the reasons the US hasn't used them again / we don't allow testing out in the open. It could also lead to scenario 3 below.
2) Are we going to use them second- ie when a hostile country has already sent a nuclear bomb to us / nuclear bombed us? No because to do so would compound the problems of contamination, no, because we would already have such enormous awful problems to deal with to be virtually beyond survival so retaliation would have no point.
3) Are we going to retaliate anyway starting a nuclear free for all maybe? No, because if by a miracle scenarios 1 and 2 haven't already ended civilisation as we know it, 3 certainly would. There would be nowhere on earth safe to live. Any survivors would be rapidly dying of radiation contamination, most all land would be unusable, there would be no functioning infrastructure, there would be no possibility of ever recovering.
So why are we continuing to spend so much money on nuclear weapons? which we can never use. We have so many useful things to spend money on.
You clearly haven't studied the theory very hard. You don't even need the intention to use, only to instill the belief that you will, hence why May said she would.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by pickup
The case for Nuclear weapons can be compared to the case for chemical warfare. We have decided that the latter is so terrible that we would never use it.
So why are we continuing to spend so much money on nuclear weapons? which we can never use. We have so many useful things to spend money on.
So why are we continuing to spend so much money on nuclear weapons? which we can never use. We have so many useful things to spend money on.
We have chosen, like the US, to regard WMDs as one type. Nuclear is chemical is biological is radiological. The one we've chosen to 'go with', as it were, is nuclear.
As for the use argument. We do use it. Every minute of everyday. It's being used right now. It's passive. It's a deterrence. It's insurance, there in case we need it. And it's worked for the last 60 years.
I'm quite happy to have a nuclear deterrent. Yes, I support multilateral disarmament, but it's a process - and a process the UK has been instrumental in. We've decreased our stockpile of these weapons consistently. I'm not sure stepping outside that process will actually help. They also provide us with influence and a global role - and the British voice in global discussions is usually one of the best.
In domestic terms, the cost argument is a nonsense. We're talking about 1/20th of our defence budget here annually. If we didn't have them, there'd be capability gaps (not to mention our NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence) - the money would simply be reinvested in less effective conventional forces. I'd prefer to keep that small share of our overall military spending to maintain something that has probably been more useful at preserving peace and our sovereignty than a whole regiment of soldiers would ever be.
In domestic terms, the cost argument is a nonsense. We're talking about 1/20th of our defence budget here annually. If we didn't have them, there'd be capability gaps (not to mention our NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence) - the money would simply be reinvested in less effective conventional forces. I'd prefer to keep that small share of our overall military spending to maintain something that has probably been more useful at preserving peace and our sovereignty than a whole regiment of soldiers would ever be.
Original post by Drewski
NHS budget 2015: £116bn
Cost of submarine replacement, with 40yr lifespan: £31bn.
So we could get ~4 months of the NHS, or 40 years protection for the country.
Cost of submarine replacement, with 40yr lifespan: £31bn.
So we could get ~4 months of the NHS, or 40 years protection for the country.
I see, well i know which one i'd rather have then in that case
Spoiler
Original post by Powersymphonia
Every day when I turn on the news, it is clear why we need nuclear weapons. There is the threat of terrorist organisations, many countries at war or on the verge of war. North Korea and Russia have nuclear weapons and could use them at any time. We need a deterrent to prevent invasion from other countries. I hate the military and war and I wish Nagasaki and Hiroshima never happened. I hope we never have to use our bombs, but while our nation is under threat, we need a way to protect ourselves. One day, we may be in a position to get rid of trident, but the time is not now.
What a lot of paranoid ********.
You're delusional if you think North Korea pose a threat to the UK, Russia aren't as stupid as you're making them out to be and LOL at thinking nukes could be used against terrorist organisations.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should I include maps
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- A Level Politics - need help
- How Are You Going To Maximise Your Holiday Break?
- Cancelled car insurance
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Participation crisis essay
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Should i vote Labour?
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- I'm confused and I don't know what to study after collage
- GCSE Citizenship Revision
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- renewable energy engineerin Exeter
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- is Dassault Systems a good place to work?
Latest
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 1 hour ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 2 hours ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 2 hours ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesPosted 2 hours ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
