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?

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 ?

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

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

Who said I agree?

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.

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

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

Oops sorry - reading too quick !

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

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

<cough>Nimrod<cough>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This.

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.