PDA

View Full Version : Cost of Trident vs Brexit Divorce Bill



MarillionFan
3rd May 2017, 12:53
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/12/replacing-trident-will-cost-at-least-205-billion-campaign-for-nuclear-disarmament

So it's £205 Billion to replace Trident
£100 Billion wanted for divorce settlements in Europe

I suggest we use up 100 Billion quids worth of Nukes by taking out France, Germany & Brussels & Spain just to be certain, lest this way we don't owe anything and we don't need to replace half of it.

I'd like to think of it as the equivalent in paying in 1pence pieces.

BrilloPad
3rd May 2017, 12:56
:yay:

MF to become new chief Brexit negotiator. Assisted by his sidekick Churchill....

Can we make sure is a strong wind blowing toward the East(a westerly?) on the day we do it though?

northernladyuk
3rd May 2017, 12:59
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/12/replacing-trident-will-cost-at-least-205-billion-campaign-for-nuclear-disarmament

So it's £205 Billion to replace Trident
£100 Billion wanted for divorce settlements in Europe

I suggest we use up 100 Billion quids worth of Nukes by taking out France, Germany & Brussels & Spain just to be certain, lest this way we don't owe anything and we don't need to replace half of it.

I'd like to think of it as the equivalent in paying in 1pence pieces.

France actually control their nukes.

diseasex
3rd May 2017, 13:02
Lets start with expanding borders of gibraltar.

What has UK become...

Paddy
3rd May 2017, 13:48
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/12/replacing-trident-will-cost-at-least-205-billion-campaign-for-nuclear-disarmament

So it's £205 Billion to replace Trident
£100 Billion wanted for divorce settlements in Europe

I suggest we use up 100 Billion quids worth of Nukes by taking out France, Germany & Brussels & Spain just to be certain, lest this way we don't owe anything and we don't need to replace half of it.

I'd like to think of it as the equivalent in paying in 1pence pieces.

The agreement to purchase Trident includes an agreement that the UK cannot use the weapon without permission from the USA. I have no doubt that this includes having to get a firing code from the USA prior to use. Probably via email, “click on this link to fire”

scooterscot
3rd May 2017, 13:59
If the UK does not pay its EU future obligations, the UK credit rating will be trashed and the economy will suffer another blow. Expect interest rates will go through the roof!

BrilloPad
3rd May 2017, 14:05
If the UK does not pay its EU future obligations, the UK credit rating will be trashed and the economy will suffer another blow. Expect interest rates will go through the roof!

Yeah. Like happened to Iceland. Bankrupt 2008. Borrowing again 2010.

Even if what you said were to happen, the exchange rate acts as a buffer. Something the EUR members don't have the luxury off.

scooterscot
3rd May 2017, 14:11
Yeah. Like happened to Iceland. Bankrupt 2008. Borrowing again 2010.

Even if what you said were to happen, the exchange rate acts as a buffer. Something the EUR members don't have the luxury off.

A buffer for who? The markets or the poor sod now wondering why a single banana now costs £13.20

Face it your doomed. Just like the Trump is going to make the Mexicans pay for that wall the Brits will that bill via trade taxes.

MarillionFan
3rd May 2017, 14:59
https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-start-it-5909f0.jpg

The_Equalizer
3rd May 2017, 15:06
Lets start with expanding borders of gibraltar.

What has UK become...

And there was I think you just came here for the cash. :wink

diseasex
3rd May 2017, 15:14
And there was I think you just came here for the cash. :wink

For stable making cash without being ripped off by govt all the time as in Poland.

Mordac
3rd May 2017, 15:22
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/12/replacing-trident-will-cost-at-least-205-billion-campaign-for-nuclear-disarmament

So it's £205 Billion to replace Trident
£100 Billion wanted for divorce settlements in Europe

I suggest we use up 100 Billion quids worth of Nukes by taking out France, Germany & Brussels & Spain just to be certain, lest this way we don't owe anything and we don't need to replace half of it.

I'd like to think of it as the equivalent in paying in 1pence pieces.

I'm glad I never asked for that fiver you owe me...:eek

shaunbhoy
3rd May 2017, 21:32
The agreement to purchase Trident includes an agreement that the UK cannot use the weapon without permission from the USA.

Except that it doesn't.

HTH

:eyes

Paddy
3rd May 2017, 21:53
Except that it doesn't.

HTH

:eyes


The absorption of the UK into the US nuclear force was made explicit only this year[2010]. Stephen Johnson, the American admiral in charge of the US Trident programme, gave his annual progress report to Congress. Among his top accomplishments for "sustainment of our [ie the US] sea-based deterrent" was sending HMS Victorious to sea after a refit. He does not list the British Trident submarine separately. No, the British Trident submarine is simply listed with the American ones under the heading "Today's Force".

This document came to me from the Berlin researcher Otfried Nassauer. It did not come from Oxford, Cambridge or King's College. It is left to peace researchers such as John Ainslie to trawl US documents to prove the American widgets and software in "British" Trident, and Di McDonald and Peter Burt to monitor the bomb factory at Aldermaston, near Reading.

Dan Plesch: Let's clear away the Trident delusion | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dan-plesch-lets-clear-away-the-trident-delusion-2083256.html)

northernladyuk
3rd May 2017, 21:53
Except that it doesn't.

HTH

:eyes

You are quite right. However, it is not 100% clear that the UK does have full operational control of the missiles.

WTFH
3rd May 2017, 21:55
Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

WordIsBond
4th May 2017, 05:11
Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm
Just to be clear, even though this is on the Parliament website, it is not a report from Parliament itself. It is a statement prepared by Greenpeace and submitted to Parliament, and based on Greenpeace's speculations/interpretations of the UK's independence, rather than actual verifiable proven facts.

In other words, yes, it disagrees with the above, but it's just someone's opinion, and hardly an unbiased one on this topic. In other words, it has about as much credibility as an Internet forum posting.

darmstadt
4th May 2017, 06:09
Just to be clear, even though this is on the Parliament website, it is not a report from Parliament itself. It is a statement prepared by Greenpeace and submitted to Parliament, and based on Greenpeace's speculations/interpretations of the UK's independence, rather than actual verifiable proven facts.

In other words, yes, it disagrees with the above, but it's just someone's opinion, and hardly an unbiased one on this topic. In other words, it has about as much credibility as an Internet forum posting.

Like this one :laugh

shaunbhoy
4th May 2017, 07:14
Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

Not really.

"In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. "

Just because something might be "difficult to conceive" does not mean it should be ruled out.
Brexit and Trump as President ought to have dispelled that idea.

HTH

:laugh

WordIsBond
4th May 2017, 08:59
Like this one :laugh
Exactly. I have an opinion, Greenpeace has an opinion, so do you. In this case my claim that Greenpeace is biased, for instance, will be evaluated not based on any authority anyone thinks I have but on whether it matches what they know.

Same for the claims in that Greenpeace report. It's an opinion that they sent to Parliament. It is in no way authoritative (so it can't really be cited as evidence of anything, except evidence of what Greenpeace thinks, for those who care what they think).

northernladyuk
4th May 2017, 09:02
Not really.

"In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. "

Just because something might be "difficult to conceive" does not mean it should be ruled out.
Brexit and Trump as President ought to have dispelled that idea.

HTH

:laugh

But we don't know if the US has mechanisms in place to prevent independent use. If the UK launched a nuclear missile attack on the 10 largest US cities, does the US have the ability to exploit the easing arrangement of the missiles to prevent them from reaching their targets?

shaunbhoy
4th May 2017, 18:44
If the UK launched a nuclear missile attack on the 10 largest US cities, does the US have the ability to exploit the easing arrangement of the missiles to prevent them from reaching their targets?

If I told you the answer to that then I'd have to kill you.

:wink

tomtomagain
4th May 2017, 19:15
The agreement to purchase Trident includes an agreement that the UK cannot use the weapon without permission from the USA. I have no doubt that this includes having to get a firing code from the USA prior to use. Probably via email, “click on this link to fire”

Everything I've read on that subject says that operational use of Trident is down to the UK.

The long-term supply chain is dependent on Lockheed Martin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_nuclear_programme#Command_and_control



The final decision on firing the missiles is the responsibility of the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Upon taking office, the prime minister writes four identical letters of last resort, each of which is locked in a safe on board the Vanguard submarines. If contact with the UK is lost, the commanding officer of a submarine has to follow the instructions in the letter if they believe that the United Kingdom has suffered an overwhelming attack. Options include retaliating with nuclear weapons, not retaliating, and putting the submarine under the command of an ally.[20] The exact content of the letters is never disclosed, and they are destroyed without being read upon the election of a new prime minister.

Under the terms of a missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently.[21]



Having said that .... you'd like to think that the PM would consult with a few people before launching nuclear armageddon.

tomtomagain
4th May 2017, 19:16
If I told you the answer to that then I'd have to kill you.

:wink

Tell her!

Bee
4th May 2017, 19:24
But we don't know if the US has mechanisms in place to prevent independent use. If the UK launched a nuclear missile attack on the 10 largest US cities, does the US have the ability to exploit the easing arrangement of the missiles to prevent them from reaching their targets?

I think they have, it's a kind of anti-ballistic missiles.

centurian
4th May 2017, 20:21
Everything I've read on that subject says that operational use of Trident is down to the UK.

WHS

Not least of which - the UK nukes can be launched without any communication being issued to the sub.

Vanguard class subs have handwritten letters from the PM locked in their safe - known as "letters of last resort" to be opened if the UK is wiped out.

USA subs need explicit codes to launch - those codes are transmitted to the sub. Main reason for the difference - is the US has a much larger and wider command and control network. It's much easier to wipe out the UK network in a first strike.

Back to the original point - the USA will retain medium term control over our deterrent - as we need the USA to keep them operational. But once the subs are put out on patrol....

sasguru
4th May 2017, 20:34
If I told you the answer to that then I'd have to kill you.

:wink

Youve become beyond sad :laugh:laugh

shaunbhoy
4th May 2017, 21:14
Youve become beyond sad :laugh:laugh

You mean almost halfway to attaining YOUR status?

:laugh