Russia trolls David Cameron over Jeremy Corbyn 'security threat' message

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: smurfy
As for Trident he is probably right, £100 billion is a huge sum of money to waste on Trident and its replacement, and anyway, this government has yet still to make a final decision on any replacement..that will be in 2016.

The oft-quoted £100bn is a figure from CND who are motivated to make it sound as unattractive as possible. The actual cost published by the MOD is two thirds less. Corbyn is active in CND.

Nukes aside. Corbyn's agenda may compromise the security of the UK because the country would fall to pieces, Chavez-style. I'm probably being a bit pessimistic, but show me a country with a far left political agenda that actually works, comrade.

If the Government says something will cost £1billion, you can bet your life the true figure will be in the region of £10billion. That includes all Governments from Wilson onwards.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Totally agree. But then a pressure group will be inclined to inflate the price for their own ends.

At the end of the day they both wilfully lie.

a reply to: paraphi

It seems the £100bn figure is the correct one.

The large majority of Conservative MPs, and most Labour MPs it seems, want to renew the Trident fleet at an estimated cost of £100bn. Conservative ministers say Britain's nuclear weapons are a credible deterrent and "the ultimate guarantee" of the country's security.

More than £3bn has now already been allocated to a new Trident project, mainly for what the MoD calls "long lead items" - thereby allowing proponents of Trident to say that since so much has already been spent on it, it would be a waste of money to stop the project in 2016.
www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: gortex

Just shows how a nice round figure £100bn finds itself going from "made up" into fact. It's a CND figure.

•£11 to 14 billion for the submarine
•£2 to 3 billion for the warhead
•£2 to 3 billion for infrastructure

Source Gov UK

Anyway, we'll only really find out when the debates on the decisions are actually made. Personally, I would buy from North Korea - £372 for three, plus a box of Jong Chocs.

originally posted by: paraphi


The oft-quoted £100bn is a figure from CND who are motivated to make it sound as unattractive as possible. The actual cost published by the MOD is two thirds less. Corbyn is active in CND.

Nukes aside. Corbyn's agenda may compromise the security of the UK because the country would fall to pieces, Chavez-style. I'm probably being a bit pessimistic, but show me a country with a far left political agenda that actually works, comrade.

Must be changing quite a bit then. Michael Fallon early 2015,

"In the Commons on Tuesday, Michael Fallon, the UK defence secretary, fell back on a well-worn ministerial phrase saying he "did not recognise" the £100bn figure. Yet he added it was not possible to put a total figure on the cost of replacing Trident."
Elsewhere he is quoted as saying £25 billion is a cheap fix for Trident...he should change his name to Tommy Cooper, except that would be an insult to Tommy, while David Cameron eschewed on any real nuclear threat, by saying we need Trident to save us from North Korea..the Commy Troopers.
Even an all party group has given the actual cost at £50 billion+
Lest we should forget, Trident is not an independent British deterrent, it is a system and needs to use technology..from the US of A to work, and without it, Trident is fecked. Ching, Ching Ching.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: gortex

Just shows how a nice round figure £100bn finds itself going from "made up" into fact. It's a CND figure.

•£11 to 14 billion for the submarine
•£2 to 3 billion for the warhead
•£2 to 3 billion for infrastructure

Source Gov UK

Anyway, we'll only really find out when the debates on the decisions are actually made. Personally, I would buy from North Korea - £372 for three, plus a box of Jong Chocs.

What makes you think the actual cost will be available in 2016? that's total rubbish, notwithstanding that the projected costs given in the link are still from 2006, with the only protected/projected cost from 2006 is the submarine itself, which is nuts and bolts, and still likely to cost more, eventually.
Also do you actually think the infrastructure figure is going to be anything like £2/£3 bliilion? this is plug and play stuff that changes every farts end...Oooh I'll have some of that new stuff, OK Limey, that'll be another £10 billion...shiite we can't afford that, and there's another election coming up...Sorry Limey, that's what it costs, just throw out the old NK threat again, no probs!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
Anyone who thinks Nuclear Bombs make us safer, needs their head felt and heart transplanted...

Anyone who doesn't needs to take the first available flight put of LaLa Land.

No, the citizens of lala land have far too strict border controls, they won't let you if you're from a country that stockpiles nuclear arms, they send you back to crazyville, until you've make it sane again.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I'm with you on that one brother.

a reply to: alldaylong

Probably? Lmao

For some reason issues of national defence arnt that important to me. If we get into war with Russia the very worst possibility, we probably have a U.S. Military base in most counties in the land or a target of military significance that would all be targeted by the thousands of nukes Russia has. So the chance of surviving a preliminary nuclear exchange will be tough. After that we would have a nuclear winter, which would probably kill off any crop we farm and contaminate everything we eat and drink . It would basically be an extinction level scenario, so I don't really worry about it. I wouldn't want to be around afterwards anyway. North Korea and Iran are not a threat to us IMO. As I don't fear death. I can't think of a scenario when we need to go to war and fight. Hasn't really helped out in the Middle East really has it? I'm sure I'm being very naive about everything, better that than living in a state of constant fear. The view from LA LA land isn't so bad. Jeremy Corbyn may not have been the wisest choice for labour members, but seriously were any of the others going to win the next election?

I don't really see the point in just creating a copy of the Tories, just to placitate the media and blairaites

a reply to: gortex

Russians are using simple and to the point approach to truth

And it works,

By the way
They are now blaming Putin for Refugees

Lol

a reply to: gortex

Whilst i get the point that Russia was making (and kind of agree wih them), i still actually agree with the Tories that he is a potential threat to security. His position on many aspects of national security (not just Trident) make him so.

I kind of like Corbyn, despite being a long way from him politically. At least he has the courage of his convictions (although we shall if that remains now he is leader). The thing is though, like many career backbench MP's he can support all sorts of causes / ideologies that sound great in theory but in practice would be an absolute nightmare. It will be interesting to see how he can cross this bridge over time, now he is the Labour gaffer.