It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trident Replacement (£76 billion)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
with new reports today saying a new trident replacement will cost £76 billion (guessing thats around $140 billion in US dollars).

britain is due to make a decision by the end of this year whether they are going to go ahead replacing or not, is this something britain should do?...i think the british government was all for replacing it, but with key-figures and huge amounts of the public staging protests, it seems labour are having its doubts.

but whats your views on the subject? should we upgrade or should britain disarm and no longer be a nuclear state setting an example to other nations?

would also be good to hear from americans on this subject, should your country replace the trident?

later




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The Vanguard class subs? The first boat of the class is only 13 years old!!! Why do they need to replace it now? No confidence in those boats? Right now the Ohio class boats the first 4 older boats are converted to launcher Tomahawks instead of ballistic missiles.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
The Vanguard class subs? The first boat of the class is only 13 years old!!! Why do they need to replace it now? No confidence in those boats? Right now the Ohio class boats the first 4 older boats are converted to launcher Tomahawks instead of ballistic missiles.


I think you will find the lead time to develop and build is pretty prolonged, so by the time they appear Vanguard will be due for replacement.

The 76 billion cost would be the through life cost.

Regards



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

I think you will find the lead time to develop and build is pretty prolonged, so by the time they appear Vanguard will be due for replacement.

The 76 billion cost would be the through life cost.

Regards


Thanks for the clarification. The Ohio right now is 25 years old, and converted to be an SSGN which would extend its service predicted to the year 2020 to 2030.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
edit: forget it

[edit on 21-9-2006 by bodrul]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Why does the government need to spend 76BILLION on increasing its nuclear aresenal?

IT already has nukes, and a fierce military machine.
Its closest partner has thousands of nukes, and will gladly assist if world war ever occured.

So why would the government waste 76Billion on its military when its clear a military solution in todays world simply doesnt exist!

Wouldnt that money be better spent on improving infrastrucutre, improving relations? aid? assisting the poor, the old, the homeless? fixing the hospitals? doing anything but making more god damn nuclear weapons ?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
While having nukes around is unpleasant, for a major power not having an arsenal when a major rival *does* seems to be even less appealing. Nuclear detterance (MAD) has been fairly effective over the last few decades.

And if you want to maintain nuclear deterance, you have to buy new weapons as old systems wear out or become obsolete.

That said, Triden SSBNs are a fairly expensive way of storing weapons. I've posted about this before and I still think it's true. England could easily maintain "deterance" using land based ICBMs and/or cruise missiles (Tomahawk or Storm Shadow) for far less than the price of owning and operating SSBNs.

Heck, Tridents fired from silos on the main island could reach most points of interest... the south pole and Australia would be out of reach, but I doubt GB needs to nuke anything in that area.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
well many people argue that britain should always maintain its nulcear arsenal while france still as theirs! - if the UK decides to disarm, france would be the ONLY country with in europe with nuclear weapons, therefore:-

1) france has an advantage over us

2) or another scenario, france would be the only defender of europe should a nuclear war break out - or even yet, what would happen if france allies itself to the other side to britain?


i'm all for upgrading, i think its important we maintain our nulcear arsenal - nobody knows what the future holds.

every country wants nulcear weapons now, why would we want other countrys bullying us should we decide to disarm? because thats what would happen. i can easy picture (for example) iran threatening to strike britain if they don't like what we've got to say.

it would be money well spent IMO


[edit on 21-9-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Very intresting posts going on here.-

Adgit8dchop...I think the concept is that the submarine is the ultimate stealth weapon...when properly used. Some how I dont think land based weapons of this type are very stealthy or easily hidden. How many foreigners do you have in your country at any one time verses the nationwide population levels?? Think this through carefully...about land basing. Same thing to you Red Matt....landbasing is a thing of the past ..with satellite overheads..and GPS type navigation.

Here in America ...the role of the Tridents is being somewhat superceeded by the Attack type boats with the Tomahawk vertical launch delivery system. 12 vertical launch tubes in the foreward ballast tanks. THere is no question that these weapons have the capacity to be "specially configured.'
British boats of this type do not have these tubes in the ballast tanks. They will be fired from the torpedo tubes just like regular torpedos. I think this class boat will be called the ASTUTE Class.

As to transfering the moneys ..better spent on social programs...they want to do this here in America too..since it will obviously buy VOTES from the public purse for certain politicians/political partys.....in perpetuity. Sound familiar to you people?? Since politics also pays for public education ..this means the same people are educating you folks too..into this type of thinking...just like here.

Translation of what I just said..is you should seriously think about surrendering now..before the shooting starts.

One more thing..the same politicians and pubic educators are teaching and preaching the same here..so dont count on us as your friend in times of trouble. They want us to surrender now too.
I cant imagine what you people are thinking??
Read the writing on the wall ...people!!


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   


Trident Replacement (£76 billion)


Tthat 76 billion could be wellspent on other things such as the NHS or imporving our public services etc.

But Say for instance the uk gets ride of all its nukes oks, and say a country such as Iiran was to send a nuke sub off the coast of say devon, and told Oour Gov (UK), either we surrend or they will lob a few nukes on us. Iif we did not have the Nuclear deterrant then, we would have to surrender.

But I agree the money costing to upgrade to trident, could be spent elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Tthat 76 billion could be wellspent on other things such as the NHS or imporving our public services etc.

Mabye you should google "Defence statistics MOD"...you might find some interesting facts from this site www.dasa.mod.uk...
Steveo read there and call me negative about our government.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join