15 Billion for UK nuclear warhead programme

[Howhighcanitbe]

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?

Defence takes a long time to build up

War can come along quickly

Without the right equipment to defend ourselves the NHS will not exist

In one way it's a waste of money

In another way it's the best money you can spend

Also a lot of it will be spent in the UK in hi-tech industries which will help boost the economy

It’s not the spend - it’s the what on that is probably wrong - as with OP cyber defenses, drone defensive- modern issues not last century mass annihilation

tyoe edit

OP you can offer to go around in a dingy and a stick protecting us from the various ships that keep coming to having a look at our sea defence systems

Unfortunately I think it’s more than necessary in the world we live in.

We should be investing in all defences too, including cyber related crime.

When these bits of news break I tend to work on the assumption that our government has intel that suggests this is necessary. The sort of intel not available to those of us with day to day lives. It’s one area where you have to have a bit of faith. Whether this is imminent threat, general world developments, or working with allies to protect each other - all involve information that we’ll likely never know.

The UK needs far better defences, I wish that wasn't the case but you've only to look at what is going on worldwide to know that we do need to beef up what we have considerably. It will bring new jobs too, don't forget.

It's defence spending. I think it's money well spent. Like an insurance policy. Let's hope we never need them but it's the world we live in. I'd rather not but I don't want a government sticking it's head in the sand- but we do need to also spend more on food security as we are quite vulnerable.

I think it’s far more likely that we would be crippled by cyber attacks to make day to day life as we know it impossible and attacks on the energy network . We would then destroy ourselves from within no need for conventional attacks. This just seems like we are a few steps away from parading our weapons through the streets North Korea style. It’s inflammatory. We should be quietly strengthening vital systems from within to deter attacks and making sure systems are in place for things like food and medicine distribution. Instead the plan seems to be for the government to have shiny new weapons , I assume bunker upgrades too and we would just be left to it if war played out the way they assume / want! It’s not the correct focus anymore I think any country that is a threat will use non conventional means to attack.

It is sad we still live in a world where countries can't get along but, this sort of investment is needed. It's like an insurance policy.

Yes and we are spending on that too, fear not

If the UK were to be attacked, I very much doubt it would be the kind of attack that this sort of spending will stop. This is, in my opinion, less about being prepared for war and more about generating a "war economy". It has long been known that wat and it's associated trappings produce strong economies - but only temporarily. As Tony Benn once said “If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people.” So why are we finding money to kill people in a war when we can't find the money to help people?

Sadly the post ww2 alliance with the US has become unreliable. Nato will struggle if the US pulls out

This seems to be a sensible step. But it's very sad that it's needed

Have you read about the massive service cables that keep being cut in the sea?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/mar/05/shadow-fleets-subaquatic-sabotage-europe-undersea-internet-cables-under-attack

Are you aware of the situations in Ukraine and Taiwan?

I understand that defence spending is necessary but this seems far too much in the wrong areas?

Trump has said that unless Europeans step up their own defences, he won't be committing US troops to our defence, so 'far too much' is a moot point when the future of NATO is at stake. Trump thought we weren't spending enough (and in truth, we probably weren't) and that's the main driver - NATO's future.

Also, as a pp said, all the mood music from various countries' intelligence services is that Russia is upping its military power and making hundreds and hundred of additional tanks, as well as infringing air and sea space - clearly Putin's ambitions go way beyond Ukraine. It's why Poland spends 5% of its GDP on defence.

It's actually quite frightening to know that we're being put on a war footing. But at least we may be better prepared for whatever happens.

It's a bit like PPE for covid. Fine to have non of the stuff around. Then when you need it there is a mass scramble to try to get it, costing a fortune.

Nuclear missiles and submarines are not the sort of thing you can rustle up on a whim like ordering deliveroo. And when you need them, you really need them.

I hate the way we seem to live these days with zero contingency for anything. That's because being popular as a government is all about not doing tax rises, not about good preparation and planning for the future. It's all about short terminism and all about now. Which is why in the future we are going to be screwed.

What I would say is rather than complain about the 15 billion spent on nukes ask why the government doesn't raise taxes to pay for the other things you think it should be spent on.

Money spent on cyber attacks would probably just get funnelled into the pockets of IT consultancies who would charge a fortune, do practically nothing and be nowhere to be seen when the internet breaks down and it all goes tits up. See the ID card scheme and the digital NHS, both collosal wastes of money.

@GasPanic Do you actually believe that in the event of a war in which we need "nukes", we would need to be even the slightest bit bothered about the long term future of anything at all? In the event of nuclear war, the only thing one can hope for is to be right underneath the incoming weapons.

As for those worried about what will happen if the US don't step up in the event of war. don't panic - they have never stepped up in a war unless they had worked out which side was winning. You genuinely think that the US would step up for Europe, even if we were to arm ourselves to the teeth and spend 30% of the GDP on weapons? The USA will do whatever is in its own interests at all times, and the only reason it will step up is if it's own interests are threatened or if there is a fast buck to be made.

The only people who win wars are arms dealers and countries who are arms dealers.

The ballistic missile subs do their job mostly silently and unthanked.

But having them does allow an extra strategic option before escalation to armageddon. We have a small red button that we can use before the big red button. Hopefully we need neither.

The fleet submarines are a bit different as they offer conventional strike capability against land targets which is a useful additional tool in warfare and already has been used by us, as well as the ability to conduct warfare against ships and other subs.

Yes I don't think the US, the EU or anyone else can be relied on in war. In a similar manner to what happened to vaccines during covid it became every country for themselves. That's why if you want to a least stand a chance of shaping the outcome, you need to have the ability to look after your own interests.

£15 billion for nuclear missiles alone.

£1.4 billion "saved" by scrapping the winter fuel allowance
£5 billion "saved" by cutting disability entitlements

Here's an idea - buy fewer nuclear missiles / weapons of mass destruction. Spend more on our people. Better support for the vulnerable with decent incomes. Proper (re)training and supported employment so that people with disabilities who can work get the support to do so instead of simply pulling their benefits from under them and leaving them to poverty and more ill health. Expand social housing build. It's not like there aren't things that we need.

I'm not an advocate of war anyway, and recent history tells us that wars are not going to be fought in the old ways going forward. Drones, cyber attacks, and ok maybe cutting undersea cables etc (which a submarine would be useful for, but not a nuclear weapon) are the direction things are going. But didn't we recently take part in a little war (with someone who was previously one of our allies and who we actually supported and sold weapons to!) because the CF was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction??? Oddly, we didn't find them.

Nuclear weapons are not precision targetting, they kill and destroy indiscriminately, military, infrastructure and civilians alike. They poison te environment, as if we aren't doing enough of that already. It's a nice little exclusive club of a number of nations where we spend as much making sure nobody else can join it. Perhaps they would be less keen to join it if we weren't so keen on having the club in the first place.

And let's face it, something else we have learned recently is that the enemies of the state can far more effectively bring us to our knees by attacking the Co-op or M&S. To slightly paraphrase "They can take our lives, but God forbid they take our on-line shopping..."

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."

I mean first of all you have to compare like with like.

15 billion may just be the warhead design and maintenance. But like the cost of the subs that will be spread over a lifetime of about 30 years.

If you look at the cost of winter fuel allowance that is £1 billion per year every year.

From what I can find in the media trident currently costs about £3 billion per year. I am not sure whether this is just running costs, or is the amortised cost of the entire program over its lifetime. But you need to be clear which costs you are comparing with which.

I don't think necessarily cutting the winter fuel allowance is a good thing although it is very poorly targeted. But if you are going to keep it, I am not sure that ditching trident to provide it is a good idea.

The warheads are also uk manufacturered and maintained. So this money supports a huge number of jobs.

Unfortunate that its needed, but not a waste, even if never used the boost to the economy is massive from defense spending. So many industries perk up.

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

I was so afraid that Labour would never have the guts to do this. I lean more conservative on the UK political landscape, and defence was one of my biggest worries when Labour won.

Would you prefer it to be used?