|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 2 May 10:34
Can we justify continue spending the money on a nuclear deterrent when the relative threat of nuclear conflict is so small?
Should the money not be better spent shoring up defences against more pressing threats such as pandemics and natural disasters?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sat 2 May 10:38
I think this will be part of a forthcoming general review of government expenditure. For sure, defence spending should be top of the list of areas for review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 2 May 11:16
I can just see those trough snouting politicians who lobby for trident manufacturers and maintainers practically salivating at the thought of losing their cash cow fir a safer more peaceful earth....
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
Post Edited (Tue 05 May 08:48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Gun Mech par
Date: Sun 3 May 10:06
As an ex-submariner that served on all 4 Vanguard class boats I hope its scrapped. Biggest waste of money ever, serves no purpose in a modern society and money is desperately required elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 3 May 14:19
Naval expenditure has always been a highly contentious issue. I spent a large chunk of my career in the commercial shipping sector and latterly before my retirement was directly involved in the sale and purchase of several ships around the world.
In the commercial sector, we would look at the value of naval contracts and weep.
Take for instance the contract awarded to the Daewoo shipyard in South Korea by the UK Government for four Tide-class replenishment tankers. The contact, which was just to build the hulls (the topside fit-out was completed in the UK), was initially valued at £450m but came in finally at £550m. That is a hell of an overspend on a relatively uncomplicated build.
A practically identical 40,000 tonne product tanker for the commercial shipping market would today come out of the same shipyard complete and fully fitted out at a cost of less than US$36m (£29m). Something is amiss...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 3 May 15:12
My understanding is that there are much more stringent regulations with regard to building and maintaining a naval vessel?
For example the materials have to be made in certain ways by certain pre-vetted companies; the staff have to be security cleared and paid accordingly and so on - all of which adds up.
It's not the cost of individual boats that irks me so much as the UK's need to "project power" - pay extra for well made unsabottaged boats, that's a good thing, but only enough of them to protect our wee island rather than enough to destroy Russia. There's simply no need.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 3 May 16:54
Sorry, genuine question, do you mean we only have enough to protect the British Isles or that you would like us to only have enough for that?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 3 May 21:04
If we are to call it defence then it should be for defence.
We haven't defended since 1941 - we use our military for attacking other people. Sometimes illegally and without provocation.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Angus_W
Date: Mon 4 May 11:27
Makes you think...........
We are going to spend £205bn on replacing trident. Why?
These weapons are redundant in the modern world.
They can’t fight terrorism.
They can’t protect us from a pandemic.
During the Cold War we were sold “If we don’t have these weapons the Russians will be here next week........”.
Finland is not in NATO - They have a border with Russia - no nukes & no invasion/issues for 75 years.
It’s all BS.
We built this system to protect our country & when the real threat came along it was useless.
Get rid of these weapons & build an effective worldwide reactive pandemic relief team.
“.........it ain’t over till the Pars score!”
Post Edited (Mon 04 May 13:13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 4 May 18:48
Chemical and electronic are how modern warfare will happen, not silly missiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
