15 Billion for UK nuclear warhead programme

It's like Lear's army in the end - I'm with Regan, "What need one?"

And then there’s the issue of democratic control. Who advises ministers? The Ministry of Defence an institution influenced by large, well-funded defence contractors, often staffed by ex-MoD personnel turned lobbyists. These players are very skilled at finding compelling reasons why we must spend vast sums with them to ensure our security.

How can a much smaller and often weaker command chain within government realistically assess those claims? That’s why, time and again, we end up buying a very expensive pig in a poke most of the decision-making hidden behind the veil of national security secrecy.

How many nukes does one need? Surely we can goes halvsies with a few friends

Thank you for such a well written response

I would keep ours but just keep them updated and working since they exist. That alone would deter anyone from attacking us if indeed MAD does work - we don't need more or new ones and spend more on missile defence system for the home front our own Iron Dome. But we can't uninvent them or it would seem stop runaway climate change which should be the real focus or our collective efforts as a society. It feels like humanity, collectively in 2026 is losing the plot big time and time is rapidly running out to fix it. The more Labour spend on defence and the less on the rest of the state the more Reform will make hay and stand a chance along with a rump Tory party of taking power at the next election . Then all bets are off we will have been eaten by the enemy within not some percieved threat from far away.

Do you have any credible alternative, given the odds on anyone giving up their nuclear weapons is absolutely zero?

People say nukes aren’t there to be used, just to deter others. But that only works if everyone is always rational and mistakes never happen which isn’t exactly reassuring.

We’re spending billions on weapons that don’t stop the actual threats we face today like terrorism, cyber attacks, pandemics, or climate change. And let’s be honest: saying “we need them to stop war” while threatening mass destruction doesn’t exactly make the world safer and just because we’ve avoided nuclear war so far doesn’t mean the system is safe it might just mean we’ve been lucky and there's an insecapible logic if they are good then every half devloped nation will strive to get them.

And would Starmer in the final analysis press the button and wipe out millions - if he would then that puts Hitler/Stalin and Mao into the shade and if he wouldn't what's the point.Any leader who would, would be an absolute psychopath and not one I want as a leader.

Do you realise how massively Ukraine invests now in drone capabilities? Not in absolute terms in £££, because that's not the best comparison basis in a war economy, but in terms of tech resources, research, brainpower and yes even garage-level projects.

There's always money for wars

This was a lifetime ago. The fact few if any other posters here would recognise "GEC Marconi" tells it's own tale.

I once worked for GEC. When I left Uni there were like Rolls Royce - you kind of assumed they'd always be there.

At least I didn't die in a mysterious accident ....

The irony is hard to ignore: the West waged a multi-trillion-dollar War on Terror against an enemy hiding in caves, while China quietly went about building infrastructure, expanding its manufacturing base, and securing overseas resources. Forgive me if, in comparison, I struggle to trust the judgment of our collective leadership. Remember the dodgy dossiers? It's laways different this time when it hardly ever is.

This.

I saw this on another thread and it is still relevant 80 years later. It’s a good cartoon.

I think Starmer is trying to get a lift from putting out headlines. But it likely won’t help much.

I have a nephew who works in Bae - he had never been busier or better paid. Loads of waste there as well - they are basically a privatised part of the civil service who only sell to goverments so inefficiencies are part of the ecosystem.

You forgot the real kicker. The RAF never wanted it. They wanted the US AWACS which was tried and tested.

At it's height the Nimrod project was clocking up 10,000 change requests a year. You can work that out in requests per working day if you like.

They didn't wipe out any of Russias sub fleet though.

Warfare is changing but subs are stealthy and very difficult to locate and destroy when they are 100m under water in the middle of the ocean somewhere.

Subs are pretty much resistant to swarms of drones and air attack and nuclear ones can stay submerged for months at a time.

This is most likely why. 2/3 is left and the situation is hugely inflamed. A panicking and angry leader is far more dangerous than a confident one.

I think this is absolutely worth doing. Not to use them, but as a deterrent.
You can't threaten a country into not attacking you or another country if you don't have the capability to retaliate properly. And that alone can be enough to avoid anything bad starting without actually needing to use them.

Cyber attacks will already be having a lot of money put into them, but deterrent of physical attacks on us or other countries is just about the most important thing. There's no point in having working Internet if somewhere has been blown up, and if that happens ultimately we'd likely end up in ww3.
I doubt the timing of this is coincidence, it will have been carefully chosen after assessing possible risks.

Fact is we have no idea what the future will bring. If you'd told someone in 1910 that within four years there would be a war that would kill 700,000 young British men, then a truce for 20 years, then another war that would kill another 400,000 and leave many British cities a smoking ruin (not to mention bankrupting the country) he'd have told you not to be ridiculous.

spaffed indeed.

Nimrod MRA4 (Cancelled in 2010)

• The failed upgrade program (meant to modernize Nimrods) cost over £3.6 billion.
• Only one aircraft was made fully operational, and it was never used.
• Adjusted for inflation, that's around £4.5–5 billion today—for zero operational output.

<cough>Nimrod<cough>

Cheap drones with taped on bombs launched from an artic have destroyed Russia's nuclear bombers but let's dob BAE a few billion so they can spaff it up the wall on redundant tech that may never work.The militray / industrail complex is a thing. as Eisenhower aptly pointed out./

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

I'm not out of touch but would like to think I'm an optimist. The only realistic candidates are Russia and or China. So why would they attack us if we haven't attacked them first and let's not forget that Churchill and Roosevelt handed Eastern Europe to Soviet Russia as an example of necessary realpolitik rather than the noble or right thing not to do. We no longer rule 1/3 of the world nor do we have the wealth to project such power even if we wanted to do so - all the more so since the US has left the field. More weapons rarely make the world a safer place indeed they increase the likeilhood we will use them down the line. WW1 was touted as the war to end all wars when all it did was to spike the conditions for it's rerun. WW3 against the backdrop of runaway climate change truly will be the war to end humanity as a viable species anmd we must strive with every sinew of our being to stop that happening and reduce the temperature or we will all perish.

Not quite sure why we need quite so much, when Ukraine has just wiped out the billions that is 1/3rd of Russias strategic bombers with the equivalent of a poundland cigarette lighter..

But what do I know ?

That said, future UK defence probably should not factor in the US anymore. They are now a "nice to have".

It's not a waste if money. We need defence. Also the army needs to be built up and conventional weapons. We face serious threats. Which is far more worrying than benefit cuts and unemployed folk having to get a job.