A £350 million start on the next generation of nuclear deterrant submarines...

[sandyRoe]

Which of our enemies are these submarines supposed to deter?

[jno]

these perhaps

http://tinyurl.com/7zw8txg

[douglas9401]

Looks a bit like Cowell and that Tullisa one.

[Gromit]

France?

[Gromit]

Or possibly the Scots.

[Quizmonster]

Well, if it is the Scots, Gromit, remember that all of Britain's nuclear submarines are based at Faslane...in Scotland!

[emmie]

the Middle East, China perhaps, seeing how the first is destabilised and the second is now a major player in the world

[Hopkirk]

Total waste of money.

If we continue with telling the Iranians they can't have nuclear weapons, perhaps we should walk the talk.

[EDDIE51]

Total waste of money they should be scrapped immediately

[youngmafbog]

Except of course we know a=know the reality of Iran not having nuclear weapons.

We heard that cry once before, 'In my hand I have a piece of paper' these sort of people dont do talking.

And do you want to be around when DJ and all his extremists mates have got it and you have not?

[Hopkirk]

youngmafbog, can you describe an event when we would actually fire these weapons?

Everyone knows we would never actually use them in any circumstance, so what is the point in having them?

[jake-the-peg]

I think you're missing the point MFB

This isn't about nuclear disarmament it's about nuclear submarines.

We don't need hugely expensive nuclear submarines to sit at the bottom of the ocean to deter Iran from launching a devastating first strike wiping out all UK infrastructure

Like cavalry officers in the trenches- you're fighting last war

This isn't the cold war

[youngmafbog]

I'm not talking about disarmament, where did you get that from? Apart from my refereence to an earlier post.

Submarines are a deterrant, just what is required. Iran may get a missile but it will have to launch from a fixed source, at least initially, so a sub is a good deterrant.

And what is 350m when we are looking at 16Billin extra in contributions to the EU? (for nothing except to appease the eurosceptics)

[Hopkirk]

Oh, so we are going to lob a nuclear missile at Iran are we?

I don't think so!

[youngmafbog]

Sorry, that should have been 13Bn not 16

http://www.dailymail....tml?ito=feeds-newsxml

[jake-the-peg]

Where did I get it from?

Your post:

//DJ and all his extremists mates have got it and you have not? //

Or were you epecting Iran to build nuclear submarines?


The point of a submarine is that it is very difficult to detect and hit.

They made sense (of a sort) when the USSR was a threat with the potential to take out any land based sites.

If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon they will be very limited - a nuclear submarine facility is definately fighting the last war.


Besides which Iran needs a nuclear weapon for defensive means - It can see US invasions of countries it doesn't like. Having a nuclear weapon makes it immune to that in the same way that North Korea is

The idea of some great East West exchange of nukes is fanciful nonsense and diverts military spending from more effective projects.

I think you may be falling for naval propaganda - they are very keen to keep them because it keeps them important

[anotheoldgit]

Since the OP hasn't bothered to provide a link, how do we know what he is talking about?

What are these next generation submarines, because this is the latest and a pretty awesome vessel it seems?

http://www.dailymail....-English-channel.html

[LazyGun]

A link might have been helpful, but I think it pretty clear that Hammond was announcing spend on the successor subs to carry the Trident missiles, currently carried by the Vanguard class subs.

The central point remains - do we need to spend billions, nevermind this 350 million, continuing with the Trident programme, a programme that is essentially a relic of the cold war "mutually assured destruction" scenarios. We are spending billions on an increasingly unlikely nuclear ICBM exhange, money that could be spent much more productively elsewhere.

In times of austerity, swords into ploughshares ought to be high on the agenda. And perhaps this govt could use some of the money to equip or latest aircraft carriers with something useful, like, you know, aircraft. Scrapping harriers and long distance sensor/scanning was a short sighted consequence of a rushed Strategic Defence Review.

[pdq1]

Whoever the enemy is you can bet it will come from Europe or the Middle East. In the event of a nuclear war its not the US being hit but Britain. Its just been released the Soviets had nuclear missiles aimed solely at Britain from Eastern Germany during the cold war. This was at the same time when the US had the Cuba blockade. They forgot poor old England.

[sandyRoe]

Would Cruise Missiles armed with nuclear warheads not be enough for the politicians who want to keep our seat at the top table? They'd be a lot cheaper.

[pdq1]

Only came out in the last few days.

http://www.dailymail....tml?ito=feeds-newsxml