trident

throughout the discourse you polluted the conversation with gross distortions of reality, I chose to ignore your remarks of £74 bn (the real estimate is between £10-20 bn) while letting you slip in lie after lie, but your latest falsification really does take the piss.... The US do not and never will keep British launch codes!!!

You're off your head, you should really do a little research before spurting your bullshit with such aplomb!

"The true cost of replacing and operating the Trident nuclear missile system would be at least £76bn, according to estimates revealed today. Based on official figures, they take into account the initial cost of acquiring new Trident missiles and replacing Britain's existing nuclear submarines, and the annual running costs of maintaining the system and nuclear warheads over its 30-year life."
the guardian 21/9/06

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?

http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http://www.modoracle.com/index.h2f

So, from the fact it's for the Lib Dems you can probably subtract a little, but if it's backed by indepedent auditors, it's probably not in a different galaxy to a sensible estimate?

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?

I don't get this argument Joe.

Are you saying it should be up to unelected defense/intelligence analysts to decide things like going to war, without political involvement?

The current system is better; the intelligence community makes the information available to elected members of parliament to decide whether or not we need to go to war/replace trident etc.

This isn't what happens?

Explain what you believe 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.

Yeah, basically how I understood it.

So what're you proposing...either that unelected officials make the decision and pass the bill directly to the taxpayers, or that potentially sensitive information is disseminated amongst non-governmental politicians.

Neithers ideal!

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?

But in a decision of this scale, on a topic on which there was little mention in the election upon which the officials were elected, it seems like madness to exclude opposition voices from a sensible debate.

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.

The intelligence community are most concerned about protecting their sources - information can be disseminated in such a way as to remove evidence of the sources involved - my limited understanding suggests that reports are typically graded to give an indication of the reliability of the source, rather than its nature.

The government, and this one particularly, is noted for its use of whips to stifle opposition within the government. When the issue concerns an amount of money such as this, it is important that we hear the opposition voices.

Perhaps a system whereby senior members of the opposition were cleared appropriately and briefed with sensitive material to facilitate such a debate would be preferable, if there is really no way that source-free material could be used.

The other simple fact of the matter is that no intelligence can view threats 50 years in the future, and therefore there are other issues to be considered, including the ethics of owning nuclear wepaons, the message it sends, and their usefulness against threats such as terrorism - would money be better spend on intelligence to counter a potentially nuclear-armed terrorist organisation that the ability to flatten whatever country they have originated in?

These don't require a knowledge of sensitive intelligence, but are still relevant to the decision making process.

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