Sheefa Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Not sure if this thread has been covered guys - had a quick search and found nothing. So, what are our views about the £20bn proposal to upgrade Britains Nuclear Arms capabilities? This is obviously because the they propose to reduce the number of warheads from 200 to 160 too - so how does that cost figure? They're meant to be cutting the number of Nuke subs from 4 to 3 too after they've approved new sub designs. Estimated cost of "keeping up nuclear appearances" is estimated at more than £1 billion a year! Well worth it in my eyes. The Trident Missle System: - Missile length: 44ft (13m) - Weight: 130,000lb (58,500kg) - Diameter: 74 inches (1.9m) - Range: More than 4,600 miles (7,400km) - Power plant: Three stage solid propellant rocket - Cost: £16.8m ($29.1m) per missile That's an expensive firework. So, do you think this is a good thing or will it plunge Britain into deeper uncertainty under another Cold War type scenario? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 A nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb ie total obliteration. I don't know why we need a bigger one. To obliterate the obliteration perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 58.5 tonne, that's heavy. I don't think anything will change, we've got no choice really in replacing an old system with a new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheefa Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 Do you think this is a follow up to the recent testing by N.Korea though? I think there's a little more paranoia in the air from Mr Blair and family after that recent incident. Tension and nukes, let alone more powerful ones, do not go well together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 BPU them UK WMD mofos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Walker Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ? Exactly, fully agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlliRR Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 +1 Ewen, Faslane naval base is just down the road from me, local workforce depends on the base too, be talking about another 2000job losses in this area which is already classed as deprived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 +1 Ewen, Faslane naval base is just down the road from me, local workforce depends on the base too, be talking about another 2000job losses in this area which is already classed as deprived. Not sure what you mean...have I said something wrong ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlliRR Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I agree with your previous post "Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ?" And because of the local impact on this community if the base were to close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraStar 3000 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I can obviously see why ending the UKs Nuclear programme would be a good thing, but the unfortunate truth is, we need them. How can we make a prediction to what the world will be like in another 20 / 30 years. I vote, keep them, upgrade the subs, build the new aircraft carriers and the JSF's to fly from them and go to war with france. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I agree with your previous post "Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ?" And because of the local impact on this community if the base were to close Ahh, I see. In that case, delete my:blink: and replace with a:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah. So our nukes pale into insignificance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konrad Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I would say, that it was good play against Russia - to keep some stuff just in case and to show off. Only thing, which is worrying me right now is that if for example Iran would get long range nukes, I do not think their leader would give a flying f**k about what happen next after pressing red button - same with North Korea - same with some middle east "religious leaders", same with african warlords... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konrad Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah. So our nukes pale into insignificance HA! I always knew that number 13 will not dissapoint me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ? Well said It's no co-incidence that the world's superpowers throughout history have always been the ones with the biggest weapons Even if only used as a detterent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraStar 3000 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah. So our nukes pale into insignificance April 14th 2029, Anyone fancy a road race around the M25. No rules. No speed limit. Just fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah. So our nukes pale into insignificance Well what do you know, it's also a Friday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Guys. 2029+7... so 2036 will be the last year... Anyone awake today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraAyf Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Insurance. Expensive, hope we never need to claim on it, but would we dare be without it ? Bang on Sir! Just to add one thing but the £20Bn estimate is the 'end-price', including the full support and operational maintenance package for the life of the new missile system - this covers many thousands of jobs for many years so it's not just the cost of 160 warheads! A good % of that will be going back in to procurement services and the labour rates of the 15000+ guys (and their families) that will help design and maintain the systems. It may sound a shed-load of dosh but the money gets ploughed back in to the UK economy and we receive the added advantage of continuing our insurance policy as what Ewen has already stated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 What's the point of having weapons that we aren't ultimately in control of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraStar 3000 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 What's the point of having weapons that we aren't ultimately in control of? Mutual Nuclear Deterrence, also known as Civilized Deterrence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Mutual Nuclear Deterrence, also known as Civilized Deterrence Apparently we need the yanks to give us the green light before lighting them......(Actually was designed for Anti-Russia) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungy Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 We all live the lives we have in the comfort we have, speaking in our own language and sleeping safe at night because of the deterrant we hold and those willing to put their lives on the line. Somewhere today our guys will be shot at, lets hope they all get home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.