So, does anyone else think that replacing Trident is a barmy idea?

[Callisto]

It was being discussed on R4 this morning and from the bits I heard the military man seemed to be anti-renewal which suprised me a bit. I would be interested in some MN veiwpoints on this.

Why is it a barmy idea?
The current Trident system is made up of three components: the four Vanguard-class submarines, the Trident missiles leased from the US, and the warheads developed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. However, if they want to upgrade the submarine they really need to start thinking about it now because building a new submarine can take 14 years. It is also very expensive (e.g. the new Astute class of nuclear-powered submarines cost about £1.2bn each).

So on that basis, an objective and informed discussion which will inform the Balance of Investment studies that are normally undertaken for capability acquisitions such as this is required.

Barmy because I can't see why we need a nuclear deterrent. Who exactly are we deterring from nuking us? It will cost billions which should be spent on equipping & feeding the poor sods in Iraq/Afghanistan and hiring more soldiers so that they all get adequate leave. I just can't see the logic in the military spending to cutbacks ratio atm.

oh christ yes

was watching the norad vid this morning

god it freaked me out.

santa being escorted through US airpace by two big bomber jets

just made me kind of

Yes, deterrent against whom? The London4 with bombs in their backpacks?....('PM,PM, we're getting reports of terrorists on the Central Line. What should we do?....Just hit that red button over there John, the one with the little mushroom on it').

Things have obviously changed. The threat comes from within and if it is international it operates by stealth, as cells with only a few people in it. The world is now so loaded up with countries and their 'nuclear deterrents' it's obvious that no govt will use them. But someone does then we all get it. Can't see the point in paying out billions to be part of a suicide pact imho.

The current "top threat" comes from terrorists, and nuclear weapons are of no use against them. Other threats do exist though. Russia still has a big question mark over its future, Iran wants nuclear weapons, and North Korea have already tested. Other countries may develop and/or buy such weapons in the future. In addition, the lead-in times for a new detterent system are very long; a Trident replacement may not be ready for 20+ years, by which time who knows what the top threat will be? 20 years ago, would we have been expcting suicide bombings in London, and Poland being out NATO ally?

But it's going to cost at least £60 BILLION. That's bonkers to me.

The Trident missiles are kept about 20 miles from my front door. Just after the Iraq invasion, at the height of all the weapons search business, some wag painted "WMD this way" signs with arrows all the way down the A82.

"WMD this way" signs with arrows all the way down the A82.

Mrs Curly

Yes I think it's barmy. Round here lots of jobs depend on it, but the only argument I've heard in favour of replacing trident is because the jobs depend on it, which is not a strong enough argument in my book.

it is not only barmy. It is totally immoral. And there we are telling Iran they can't have nuclear weapons.