trident

lol how can they quote for submarines when the technology hasn't been decided?

The 30 year running costs would be £6 bn (£200 mn per anum), the missiles acquisition is quoted between £10-20... Thats £26 billion, where are they finding the additional 50?????

Perhaps you should do a little digging before basing your opinion around one poorly researched quote?

This year witnessed an alarming rise in Trident costs historically it has has cost between 3% and 4.5% of the budget (Des Browne, column 713W on the nuclear Deterrent, 3 july 2006 ). The unreliability of using one statistic in the financial forecasts of a Nuclear deterrent becomes apparent when we calculate 3% of £23 bn (the 1999 budget) and see the costs coming in at £700 mn per year.

The anti-bomb campaigners have multiplied the largest figure they could find by 30, yet this bears no ressemblance to the real costs and shouldn't be taken seriously.

A much more sensible calculation would be

£20,000,000,000 - The utmost govenrment predeiction for Trident replacement

£1,000,000,000 - the high average running costs per annum

£50 bn Total costs.

if we were to then multiply a defence budget of £30bn (which is very generous as history has proven the defence budget increases) by 30..... the Trident system will cost us 5.5% of our military budget per year!

I'd say thats a sound investment.

if the government say it will cost £20 billion then it will probably cost twice that.
Things never cost what the first government estimates say they will.
(see channel tunnel. eurofighter, nhs computer........)

Anyway there is more to this debate than the cost. there is cost v benefit. there is trident v alternatives. trident v other defence expenditure. trident v other social expenditure. the morality of nuclear weapons, the nuclear non proliferation treaty, the encouragement of others to get nuclear. the hypocracy of it all.
all of this should be for open public debate and for debate in parliament.
the government is supposed to be our servant not our master.

and again, what do politicians know of military defence?

This isn't what happens?

I haven't time to explain our politic system in its entirity, but ministers tend to access military based knowledge through the government (usually the defence minister).... They do not have access to the same information as the government as that information is classified.

This is why when you hear members of the torie party commenting on Iraq they'll explain that they don't have access to the same information as the government.

Surely the person/people appointed to the ministry of defence are done so by elected officals?

Andy a government must be given the power to run the country, it seems insane to elect a government and then strip them of any decision making abilities?

If every decision wasd decided by parliment what would be the point of a government?

To assess whether or not we need a nuclear defence system, one must be aware of existing and future threats... In simple terms a doctor can't give a diagnosis unless he is aware of the symptons.

The only people with such information are the government.

are you havin a laugh mate seriously do you think that this country could go about its daily life if we knew the kind of threats we are under, then you must be more daft than i thought . People are stupid ( a line of men in black i know but its true ) a person is smart but collectivly we are panicy and easilly ruffled !
@ joe for once i agree with most of what you are saying (a turn out for the books )

You're confusing the current terror threat with long term national security, they are not one and the same.

The military is suggesting we upgrade our trident system.
America is upgrading their systems.
North Korea are developing their system.
Iran are developing their system.
China is developing their system.
India is developing their system.
Pakistan is developing their system.
Saudi Arabia is setting up their system.
Israel are probably developing a system.
France is researching it's system.
Even Russia still conduct nuclear research.

If there is a global trend to update or invest in nuclear defence then surely that indicates a very real threat?

forks and andy are too liberal for their own good

liberal NO! naive YES!

1. ministers are elected
2. it's supposed to work like this - we choose a parliament, the parliament chooses a prime minister and has the power to fire him/her.

The PM chooses ministers to form the government and they use civil servants to carry out their policies. Ministers and government are one and the same.

The military is subservient to the government and does what parliament through the government tells them to do. The cabinet takes evidence from the military but the final decision is taken by elected politicians with the support of parliament. Anything else is a military dictatorship.

the decision to classify anything is taken by elected politicians

they work for us. It's called democracy. And we have a right to say what we think.
There are no clouds of wise men sitting in Whitehall with the godlike power to fortell the future. It's a political judgement made by ......us ultimately.

And we should therefore have access to the facts on which these decisions are being made.

Of course there are state secrets which can't be made public but Trident is a sledgehammer and the reasons for supporting it are strategic not operational. We should not be carrying out broad strategies which a secret cabal of so-called experts have decided on without a public debate.

I give up.... national security should lie in the hands of menzies campbell and similar vessels of knowledge.

well now with this insider knowlage you seem to want to know, do you think your qualified enough to put a vote on wether we should buy more nukes or not ? i know i aint ! all i know is there is someone out there i have never met and every night i go to sleep in the knowlage that this guy is watchin out for me and my children and making sure that nothing is going to come and blow the shit out of us while we sleep , that guy has the heart of this nation on his conscience 24/7 and i'm pretty sure that if he thinks that we need these missiles to ensure the safty of this country then he know a hell of a lot better than i do . so who would you rather the security of this country be handled by mate i couldn't give two shit's if there are some dark secret society who really run thing tbh as long as they do a proper job and my family dont get bombed the shit out of then thats fine by me

At least he knew that Iraq was a mistake.........

Who do you think should decide? Shadowy experts? What if they are nuts?
Don't forget that half of MI5 were soviet agents at one time. At least with politicians they have to account for their actions.
Your belief in the right of the 'best men' to make decisions on our behalf is what led the German nation to murder your family.
Democracy may be crap but it is better than facism

man you are some stupid fucker. Go away and read 1984. And come back when you've understood it

why have you not answered my question ????

i dont need a book to tell me my thought's!!! seriously





why are you such a sheep that you NEED to argue a point to stand out , i gave my point and my reason for it and all you can do try and call names so fuckin what you read a book who's to say that book aint full of BS

I don't think you understand what British democracy is, democracy is not collective of shared responsibility.... It is the election of a party to govern our nation.

If every government decision was decided by parliment the nation would fall apart, of course the decisions of our nation should be decided by the government... if they aren't what's the fucking point of electing them?!?!?!?

You cannot equate British democracy to fascism.