Talk

Advanced search

Trident

(3 Posts)
cdtaylornats Wed 31-May-17 21:36:59

I have some questions for fans of not renewing Trident.

What will you do to restore the economy around the naval base?

Where in England will you store 400+ nuclear warheads in perpetuity, remembering that they will have to be guarded 24/7 365 days a year in a building that's invulnerable to bombs and air crashes?

How will you pay for the building and security?

How do you propose to get the building through planning and built by 2030?

Mistigri Thu 01-Jun-17 05:55:10

Coming from a supporter of a party with an uncosted manifesto this is a bit rich, but I will bite.

What will you do to restore the economy around the naval base?

The obvious answer to this is that not renewing Trident will save enormous amounts of money that could be spent on, for example, infrastructure and regeneration projects.

Where in England will you store 400+ nuclear warheads in perpetuity, remembering that they will have to be guarded 24/7 365 days a year in a building that's invulnerable to bombs and air crashes?

Huh? There are security and storage issues whether or not Trident is renewed. Warheads can be decommissioned. That still leaves nuclear material to be stored safely for many decades, but this is an issue with all nuclear weapons and indeed nuclear energy.

How will you pay for the building and security?

Replacing Trident will cost over £200 billion ... Which means that money not spent on replacing it can be spent on something else.

I'm not really sure I understand the line of questioning tbh. Either warheads are still functional (if outdated) and can continue to be stored wherever they are now. Or they can be decommissioned.

This problem is identical whether Trident is replaced or not - old warheads have to be dealt with somehow. Presumably that is part of the £200 billion cost.

cdtaylornats Thu 01-Jun-17 07:28:58

The warheads spend time either at sea or in a naval base at the moment. Old warheads when d

Decommissioning them means you still have to keep the nuclear material safely stored. Old warheads when decommissioned currently have the nuclear material recycled into new warheads. It is currently in Scotland but without the value of the navel base and personnel and the threat of independence where in England would they go.

It is the submarines that are being replaced. Trident replacement is actually misleading it is Vanguard class submarines that will be replaced by Dreadnaught class - the missiles and warheads are the same.

That is £200 billion over 30 years so £6 billion a year Building a nuclear storage facility would be an upfront cost of say £4 billion. Actually building it once you got it past local people would take years so in 2030 where do you put the bombs?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now