Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

15 Billion for UK nuclear warhead programme

110 replies

Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 07:03

Just seen this and feel it’s absolutely obscene. What a huge waste of money. Starmer apparently wants to build more nuclear submarines too. I understand that defence spending is necessary but this seems far too much in the wrong areas? Surely it would be better to focus on other weaknesses as I assume cyber attacks would be more damaging and more likely than conventional?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
SummerEve · 02/06/2025 17:08

savory · 02/06/2025 17:06

So realistically who is going to attack us and why apart from low level terrorist outrgaes from non-state actors.

Show quote history

You are either hopelessly optimistic or very out of touch with global events…

savory · 02/06/2025 17:06

zendeveloper · 02/06/2025 17:01

Do you really think your appetite for the war matters in case if you're attacked?

Show quote history

So realistically who is going to attack us and why apart from low level terrorist outrgaes from non-state actors.

savory · 02/06/2025 17:03

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 02/06/2025 16:58

Who said I agree?

Show quote history

Oops sorry - reading too quick !

zendeveloper · 02/06/2025 17:01

savory · 02/06/2025 16:55

And then you have Trump and Boris, the hollowing out of Western economies, and the rise of China now allied with Russi who together have nearly all the components and an industrial base like no other. Trying to win a winnowing competition with them is a long game. It’s better to strengthen the home front and do our best, wherever and whenever, to keep tensions down. And let's not forget they are prepared to take huge casulaties - Russia alredy has nearly a million folks killed or injured. Do we have the appetite for such a war should it ever happen ?

Show quote history

Do you really think your appetite for the war matters in case if you're attacked?

minnienono · 02/06/2025 17:00

They are investing in cyber and drones too. Unfortunately the cyber and drones need undersea connections which “mysteriously” keep being cut 🤔. Submarines are stealthy vehicles so excellent for protecting aforementioned cables.

excellent news today for all those in defence especially subs

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 17:00

PhilippaGeorgiou · 02/06/2025 16:58

You simply cannot claim that because there is no evidence at all that it would ever have escalated. Simply because something hasn't happened does not prove it can't. Conversely it doesn't prove why it hasn't happened. In fact, since the Ukraine has no nuclear missiles, one small and strategically placed missile would have brought them to their knees. You genuinely think that Putin was worried that the UK or the US would launch a counter offensive?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

Show quote history

It has been well documented that Putin has been quietly warned several times, by the US and China, that nuclear escalation would be a serious mistake. Interesting that you use the styling “the Ukraine” as well.

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 02/06/2025 16:58

savory · 02/06/2025 16:56

So since you agree where's the money coming from - who and what loses ?

Show quote history

Who said I agree?

PhilippaGeorgiou · 02/06/2025 16:58

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:45

As I said above, MAD continues to be totally relevant and has played a big part in why the Ukraine conflict hasn’t escalated.

Show quote history

You simply cannot claim that because there is no evidence at all that it would ever have escalated. Simply because something hasn't happened does not prove it can't. Conversely it doesn't prove why it hasn't happened. In fact, since the Ukraine has no nuclear missiles, one small and strategically placed missile would have brought them to their knees. You genuinely think that Putin was worried that the UK or the US would launch a counter offensive?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

Nuclear deterrence is a myth. And a lethal one at that

Nuclear deterrence continues to dominate international relations. Yet there is no proof it ever worked, nor that it ever will

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

savory · 02/06/2025 16:56

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 02/06/2025 16:53

Well, yes, obligations to NATO amounting to 3% GDP and deference to Trump and elbowing our the way to the front of the tariff queue has a cost.

So since you agree where's the money coming from - who and what loses ?

savory · 02/06/2025 16:55

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:49

You seriously believe that “luck” is why we have remained safe? Nothing to do with intelligence, diplomacy, strategy, trade relationships and a dozen other things?

Show quote history

And then you have Trump and Boris, the hollowing out of Western economies, and the rise of China now allied with Russi who together have nearly all the components and an industrial base like no other. Trying to win a winnowing competition with them is a long game. It’s better to strengthen the home front and do our best, wherever and whenever, to keep tensions down. And let's not forget they are prepared to take huge casulaties - Russia alredy has nearly a million folks killed or injured. Do we have the appetite for such a war should it ever happen ?

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:54

Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:51

I’m not sure diplomacy is relevant when we seem to have Starmer going on about being war ready and detailing how we are going to increase our nuclear arsenal. That is just inflammatory.

Show quote history

Have you actually taken any notice of what’s happened over the last 3 years or so?

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 02/06/2025 16:53

Well, yes, obligations to NATO amounting to 3% GDP and deference to Trump and elbowing our the way to the front of the tariff queue has a cost.

Original poster
Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:53

nam3c4ang3 · 02/06/2025 16:52

its nowhere near enough - but its a start, have you seen the state of the world at the moment OP?

Yes it’s a mess , wars and destruction. That’s why I don’t think this level of spending on weapons and all the talk about being war ready is appropriate.

OP posts:
nam3c4ang3 · 02/06/2025 16:52

its nowhere near enough - but its a start, have you seen the state of the world at the moment OP?

Original poster
Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:51

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:49

You seriously believe that “luck” is why we have remained safe? Nothing to do with intelligence, diplomacy, strategy, trade relationships and a dozen other things?

Show quote history

I’m not sure diplomacy is relevant when we seem to have Starmer going on about being war ready and detailing how we are going to increase our nuclear arsenal. That is just inflammatory.

OP posts:
SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:49

Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:46

It’s luck that keeps us safe and at some point there will be a leader from a nuclear armed country who will go for the ultimate show, to use a tactical nuclear weapon. I honestly believe that MAD only works if everyone is of the same mindset and as we know, some aren’t.

Edited
Show quote history

You seriously believe that “luck” is why we have remained safe? Nothing to do with intelligence, diplomacy, strategy, trade relationships and a dozen other things?

Original poster
Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:46

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:43

It’s MAD that’s kept, and continues to keep us safe. It’s not outdated at all.

Show quote history

It’s luck that keeps us safe and at some point there will be a leader from a nuclear armed country who will go for the ultimate show, to use a tactical nuclear weapon. I honestly believe that MAD only works if everyone is of the same mindset and as we know, some aren’t.

OP posts:
SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:45

PhilippaGeorgiou · 02/06/2025 16:43

And that is a simplistic view that totally ignores the fact that the non-nuclear powers (whether you like them or not) are developing nuclear capability precisely because others have nuclear weapons but don't want them to have them. MAD was discredited decades ago. The theory is based on the fact that it only works as a "deterrent" because everybody kills everybody else, so nobody kills anyone. That worked so well with wars so far, hasn't it? Bigger toys do not make people safer.

Show quote history

As I said above, MAD continues to be totally relevant and has played a big part in why the Ukraine conflict hasn’t escalated.

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:43

Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:40

I actually think MAD is an outdated concept. Much more likely now that someone would use a tactical nuclear weapon first which would be condemned and rather than an all out response we would respond similarly. Followed by intense cyber attacks and similar.

It’s MAD that’s kept, and continues to keep us safe. It’s not outdated at all.

PhilippaGeorgiou · 02/06/2025 16:43

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:36

That is a very simplistic review that completely ignores the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Show quote history

And that is a simplistic view that totally ignores the fact that the non-nuclear powers (whether you like them or not) are developing nuclear capability precisely because others have nuclear weapons but don't want them to have them. MAD was discredited decades ago. The theory is based on the fact that it only works as a "deterrent" because everybody kills everybody else, so nobody kills anyone. That worked so well with wars so far, hasn't it? Bigger toys do not make people safer.

Original poster
Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:42

savory · 02/06/2025 16:41

Surely, if the enemy believes you possess nuclear weapons, that alone acts as a deterrent—they don’t have to actually work perfectly, because if we ever did use them, it would be game over. Nuclear submarines rely heavily on stealth to remain undetected, but with the unprecedented increase in satellite surveillance by potential adversaries, combined with vast advances in AI and computing power, what are the odds that submarines may become redundant long before they even enter service?

Show quote history

They’d just use a small weapon knowing full well we would back down and not destroy the whole planet over a small loss.

OP posts:
savory · 02/06/2025 16:41

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:36

That is a very simplistic review that completely ignores the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Show quote history

Surely, if the enemy believes you possess nuclear weapons, that alone acts as a deterrent—they don’t have to actually work perfectly, because if we ever did use them, it would be game over. Nuclear submarines rely heavily on stealth to remain undetected, but with the unprecedented increase in satellite surveillance by potential adversaries, combined with vast advances in AI and computing power, what are the odds that submarines may become redundant long before they even enter service?

Original poster
Howhighcanitbe · 02/06/2025 16:40

I actually think MAD is an outdated concept. Much more likely now that someone would use a tactical nuclear weapon first which would be condemned and rather than an all out response we would respond similarly. Followed by intense cyber attacks and similar.

OP posts:
SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:37

muminherts · 02/06/2025 14:33

It’s a huge waste of money. Will just end up being mothballed without being used in a few decades.

Then it will have served its purpose

SummerEve · 02/06/2025 16:36

fixingmylife · 02/06/2025 14:01

I'm anti nuclear weapons and I think this is quite shameful use of our money. I think we are more likely to be a target if we have nuclear weapons. As a poster already mentioned to quote Tony Benn. "If we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people."

Edited

That is a very simplistic review that completely ignores the concept of nuclear deterrence.