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?

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 ....

There's always money for wars

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.

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

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.

Thank you for such a well written response

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

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.

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

Just send an army of covert snipers into Moscow. Take out Putin, take out his cronies, declare martial law, murder anyone with pro Putin/anti West sentiments and install a Western puppet government to run the place. Problem solved, in 30-50 years you'll have a fully-functioning democracy on the same level as any other european country. We should've done it long ago. The Russian elite could never be trusted at any time in history, and certainly not now. Wipe 'em all out.

These would effectively be a suicide squad, with virtually no chance of survival. And if the operation fails and is traced back to us then what? Likely, Putin and his inner circle retreat to a doomsday bunker and launch a hypersonic conventional missile at a legitimate UK military target, possibly killing hundreds.

At the same time, cyber attacks cripple parts of our infrastructure - banking systems, power grids, communications. Cables might be cut. Putin declares that revenge has been taken and claims he’s prepared to leave it at that.

So what next?

Maybe not then

If the UK is cyber attacked will they shut off electricity to homes that have smart meters .. my meter is no longer working and they’re insisting on replacing it with a smart one

It's not a typical Labour priority, which suggests to me that it's absolutely necessary. My assumption is that there is a very real threat - especially now we can no longer rely on the US military to support us.

There's been all sorts of funny stuff going on in the last few years. Russian submarines and jets frequently take liberties with our sea and air borders. Undersea cables are being cut, the Heathrow fire, the power cuts in Spain, plus however much else we don't know about because it's kept quiet.

And it will create jobs. I would much prefer there were no nuclear weapons at all, but sadly they exist and we are lucky to have quite a lot of them as a deterrent. Also Germany are doing the same thing. It's clearly being seen as a major priority by those in power.

Yep that's right, defence spending 2.5% GDP, maybe getting up to 3%, Health and Welfare spending about 20% of GDP, but hey why let the facts etc...

I thiink last time we were in this much risk was the 1930s. The world seems like a very unsafe place these days.

Each world war gets much worse than the last one. If we ever get in one we can wave goodbye to the society that most of us know and love. And what will the mostly young men be fighting for - affordable housing, free university education pensions, secure employment, a functioning NHS and modern infrastructure - the things they are denied ?

True, we are a bit ill and old. I liked the imagery anyway.

This thread made me think of this very amusing "Easter Egg" hidden on the DVD of The Day to Day back in the late 1990s.... Enjoy.

I loved The Day Today back in the day. It’s always worth remembering how France and later the US pushed back against Vietnam’s efforts for self-determination and to expel foreign invaders. By the end of the Vietnam War, about 3.5 million people in Southeast Asia had died. In Algeria, France’s war for independence killed around 1 million people. Yet, these facts are rarely discussed.

Yes, I loved it too. I know this is very silly, but if you think about it, all this is spending money on methods to kill people... It actually sounds ridiculous but..... It might have been early 2000s. It was very funny and in some way, ahead of it's time.

This is what blows my mind. Surely these rich and powerful men could just go on a perpetual holiday cruising round in a mega yacht drinking, skiing, golfing, swimming, doing whatever they want. Why cause all this misery when they too are just going to get stuck in an underground bunker.

Because they are addicted to power and probably see themslves as gods in human form who have to always win whatever the cause.It's even worse now cos the tech bros were the unloved and unloveable ones at Uni and now are the richest and most powerful men in the world. It's always men isn't it.

It is! I wonder whether it’s a disconnect from giving life. Women give life. The greatest power. Men are part of this process obviously but a lot less connected. I wonder if it’s whether they see their greatest power as taking away life. How ‘easy’. They should challenge themselves more.