There was a big fuss a while back about replacing out Trident system; how much would it cost? Is it worth it?
This was a huge thing for weeks, if not months. But then when you look at the actual figures involved, Trident only takes up between 5 and 6 percent of our defence budget annually.
That is fucking nothing. It's a literal non issue. It's around 1.5% of our benefits budget. It only costs us £2.4 billion a year to keep a modern nuclear deterrent operational, while providing over 10000 jobs, even by the admission of some green fags campaigning for nuclear disarmament:
Was this an IRL slide attempt? Was anything more important going on at the time that they didn't want us to see? Or was it just the two parties homing on on something that allowed them to fling shit at each other?
The Left always attacks military procurement. Look at all the flak the F35 has gotten in the US and elsewhere. Thankfully the only country dumb enough to fall for such idiotic propaganda has been Canada.
The US is replacing the Ohio class son too. Like all submarine tech, it is shrouded in impenetrable secrecy. I think submarines are the most top secret tech out there. The press only gets a hold of like third degree rumors.
Landon Howard
Psycho Mantis?
Jeremiah Richardson
wasn't it because it's based in Scotland and Scots are cucks?
Ethan Lewis
Don't Sup Forums think it's a little dangerous to let our governments hold a button that could, within hours, destroy the fucking world?
If we're to have nukes, yeah, let's keep it to about 10 for every nuclear country.
Asher Robinson
Well, with our current programme, Muslims will have de facto control over nuclear weapons in a few decades
So isn't nuclear disarmament a good thing in our case?
Kevin James
>Don't Sup Forums think it's a little dangerous to let our governments hold a button that could, within hours, destroy the fucking world?
No. Everyone having them stops others using them. Literally like guns.
Justin Perry
South Africa disposed all their nukes before they let the niggers take over.
Lucas Phillips
Pretty sure the US can deactivate out nukes should they so choose.
Logan Perez
>I think submarines are the most top secret tech out there. The press only gets a hold of like third degree rumors.
Definantly, Here in Sweden we are currently building our new A-26 stealthsubs. Nobody knows exactly what capabilities they have except for them having torpedo tubes that can launch spec ops units on underwater vehicles. Everything else is literally shut. Hopefully they are better than the highly succesful Gotland class subs we have today.
Owen Thomas
because the base for the SSBN is in Scotland, and since they are saying the wanna leave may aswell re-think the whole program
Alexander Taylor
But with guns there's always one fucker who ruins it for the rest of us and goes and shoots up a school. It'd take one Ba'athist dictator to start a nuclear war, who simply doesn't give a shit because muh apocalypse and muh messiah
Nolan Nelson
Thing is the money could be better spent on other stuff for the military, things which provide deterrence AND might actually have some other use:
Well if a retarded dictator is gonna get hold of them what's the point in saying we shouldn't? Thats like saying you'll deliberately disarm yourself in a room full of people because a lunatic MAY have a gunm
Jaxson Brown
Rightly so, you shouldn't let weapons like that fall into the hands of imbeciles
Brayden Hughes
Actually the outgoing white administration phones IAEA and their friends and we sent over David Cameron to collect them.
They were then shipped to Oman.
Justin Scott
Because Scotland says they might leave the union, UK should just move Trident down south anyway, better for everyone. Scots can just become a 3rd world nation then:
I'm not calling for disarmament, I'm calling for reduction. We live in a globalised world - the days of total war and mass armies are over, with no nukes or plenty.
Ian Harris
We are already on a path towards reduction, not all of the MIRVs are "live" in a trident warhead. Some are dummies.
Anthony Garcia
The one time that Tom Clancy accidentally outed in the Hunt For Red October movie that the US Navy was using gravimetrics to navigate their boats (there's a throwaway line on the Dallas about how they aren't reading any milligal anomalies that ruffled some major feathers in the US Navy/DIA), back in the 1980s, should tell you every thing you need to know about just how advanced subs are.
It's basically Star Trek, but underwater.
Carson Rivera
>even their submarines are shaped like BBC
Oliver Price
Sorry mate but you guys make super size BBC subs, Nice try.
Ian Green
Forgot pic
Jeremiah Martinez
Uh that's every sub.
Carson Reed
Sorry mate but whenever I see someone argue for nuclear disarmament, I just think they're incredibly ignorant, naive, or both.
Consider that developing nations are currently attempting to develop their own nukes.
Consider that there is no real way to enforce global nuclear disarmament, and as soon as someone decided to screw the treaty and procure nukes, they would have an instant advantage over everyone else.
A credible nuclear deterrent, Bernard Brodie wrote in 1959, must be always at the ready, yet never used. People pushing for disarmament tend to think that the nukes may be used. yes, they might be, in the same way that a meteorite might smash into earth. The whole point of having nuclear weapons was to not have to use them. Developing nations want nukes because it provides them with the same assurance and gives them more of a say in global affairs.
Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Deterrence are the most logical policies in a world where the potential to build nukes is present.
Tyler Taylor
Do it.
t. Scotcuck.
I wanna watch this place burn.
Tyler Stewart
>Why was this even a fucking issue?
Money. Dindus need more gibmedats even in UK.
>There was a big fuss a while back about replacing out Trident system; how much would it cost?
A lot, around 25 to 30 billion pounds for procurement and 1.5 billion per year for running costs.
>Is it worth it?
Yes. Credibility of British defense and foreign policy relies in the end on nuclear retaliation capability.
>The US is replacing the Ohio class son too.
Construction hopefully starts in 2021 and first boat should be commissioned in 2031. Given how much almost all major military programs are lagging behind schedule... 2035 or so is more likely.
>Like all submarine tech, it is shrouded in impenetrable secrecy.
Quite a lot can be figured out from public documents. Assuming they will follow conclusions of 2013 study it will be new hull design with 16 missiles, reactor that doesn't require refuelining during ships life cycle and turbo-electric drive with pump jet. Tons of subsystems will be taken off the shelf and directly from Virginia class SSN.
>I think submarines are the most top secret tech out there.
Space based intel assets are more secretive.
Jonathan Murphy
>A lot, around 25 to 30 billion pounds for procurement and 1.5 billion per year for running costs.
The point of the OP is that that isn't a lot though. It's fucking nothing, because we're a developed western nation with the 5th highest spending on defence in the world.
Liam Hughes
>tfw we didn't buy nippon subs while also forging a chink crushing alliance to last all of eternity
Samuel Foster
>Space based Intel assets are the most secret
There's a couple atmospheric assets that the US currently operates whose level of secrecy tells otherwise
Grayson Edwards
>there will be a Labour vote on it before the end of this month
TLDR >you can't afford it
Plus they lied about how much it really costs. Of course the Scots are chimping out for no reason and the nukes from the US come with a master switch on it. So you couldn't even fire one without a nigger putting his cock on a button first...
The Chilcot report had one consequence. Now, military leaders are not allowed to talk about this issue. Why? Because the little British army is fucking disappointed by the faggotry and by the fact that they fight for Israel's and the USA's wars.
Brody Barnes
submarines and icecreams
>truly a nation of the right Gods
Btw, it's not like a bunch of drones can map the fucking ocean real time or anything. Not to mention the latest satellites.
Liam Fisher
What's the point in the UK having a nuclear deterrant? Are we really envisioning a world where the US and France aren't on our side in a potentially nuclear conflict? If we really need to keep nuclear weapons then drop it down to two boats or just a couple of bombs on a bomber if we still have any, just to keep the title nuclear power. Use the huge savings on planes, ships and ground troops-shit that will actually be useful and needed in the conflicts we are already fighting.
John Peterson
>The point of the OP is that that isn't a lot though. It's fucking nothing
I agree on that cost isn't that high, but there are all sorts of loonies that are willing to get rid of said capability either entirely or in favor of conventional warfare capability.
On another thread someone posted this nonsense over the issue.
Figther bombers and drones with tactical nukes aren't really effective deterrent.
>What's the point in the UK having a nuclear deterrant?
Having credible as independent as possible defense.
>Are we really envisioning a world where the US and France aren't on our side in a potentially nuclear conflict?
US and France are almost certainly on your side. Almost certainly just isn't 100% sure.
Liam Hall
sure it wouldn't cost much, sssuuuuuuuuuuuure
One fucking vote wrecked the entire country and put a fucking woman in charge in a month
Luis Walker
>sure it wouldn't cost much
There are better things to save from like development aid and social security to immigrants than defense.
>One fucking vote wrecked the entire country and put a fucking woman in charge in a month
Last woman as their prime minister was about 100 times more based than Cameron.
I'll doubt Brexit will make UK a third world country. Some foreign companies operating in UK might relocate to stay in EU, but real results can be seen only in few years time span as EU might start to fragment further. If that happens UK is certainly the winner when it comes to Brexit.
Lucas Gomez
I dont know a single analyst who thinks the EU can stay together long term.
Whether that is 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years, everyone I read thinks that the EU has more years behind it than ahead of it.
Fractures along lines of currency union (southern med vs northern countries). Fractures around social policy (V4 versus progressive cucks) Fractures along military policy lines (East vs West).
There are about 3 or 4 ways the EU is now feeling the burn.
>I dont know a single analyst who thinks the EU can stay together long term.
It can't without significant reforms.
IMHO you miss a bit on fracture lines.
Federalism vs just a trade union is first one, pretty much Germany and France vs almost everyone else. Currency union goes deeper than just currency union, it goes along entire economic policy of EU. Netpayers vs net recipients. Northwest vs south vs east.
Henry Price
5-6% of your defence budget is massive though.
Cameron Roberts
Why is there a ramp on your submarines?
William Evans
That looks like a really basic bitch submarine no offense.
Samuel Murphy
because women and ponces don't understand deterrence and think it's about toxic masculine revenge
they dont even realize that if we had WW3 now, less people would die in it than have been saved from the would-be non-stop, conventional total wars, by the presence of nuclear weapons creating deterrence throughout the years
if you don't understand this, sorry your mind is shite
