Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
Then you'd be totally wrong. I've studied the British Empire and 19th and 20th century political and economic history to undergraduate level, and the high watermark was around 1850. After that we faced relative decline industrially and economically vs. ROW.
Hmm, explains why you have empire on your mind.
Yes, our power status in a purely economic sense peaked in the 19th century, but in terms of what we did in the world exercising power, that peaked in the 1940s, arguably.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Total Defence expenditure over 30 years is 1.2 trillion. Any piece of defence expenditure can be added up over its lifetime to arrive at a large figure. The Typhoon, the F35. We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.
Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
Then you'd be totally wrong. I've studied the British Empire and 19th and 20th century political and economic history to undergraduate level, and the high watermark was around 1850. After that we faced relative decline industrially and economically vs. ROW.
Hmm, explains why you have empire on your mind.
Yes, our power status in a purely economic sense peaked in the 19th century, but in terms of what we did in the world exercising power, that peaked in the 1940s, arguably.
There is some truth in that - before WWI there were some very worrying signs. Jellicoe was told that it was impossible for British industry to convert from wire wound to sleeve built up heavy guns for example. Or the attempt by both management and unions (together!) to get Denny fired as a naval architect for wanting longitudinal framing in destroyers....
When you hear this stuff it becomes much less surprising that in the 50s and 60s companies literally chose to go out of business, rather than modernise.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
The uncertainty of such a system (because of ability to intercept but also because it would rely on our government to actively arm and actively give the word to fire) would mean that not only would it not be a deterrent but actually increase instability.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
There are other factors. AIUI (from a conversation with a mate), all nuclear states are required by convention to tell others of the launch of any large missiles that could be a nuke launch: this is because the major powers have early-warning satellites to detect launches. If it is a scheduled launch, it is essentially ignored. This is one reason NK's missiles are bad news - they don't always follow the protocol.
I'd love to know more, or if I've been sold a pup on this one.
But if you had routinely-armed cruise missiles, the launch of any cruise missile - conventional or not - could be taken as a threat of a nuclear strike. I don't know how the US and Russia got around this, as they both had nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Perhaps the slower speed of cruise missiles and their vulnerability makes them more of a tactical than a strategic weapon?
Correct... and this is why the Lib Dem review on nuclear weapons a few years back was such a joke and was hardly considered by the MoD.
Either we have our present system of a minimum nuclear deterrent (renewed) OR we don't bother at all.
Those are the two options frankly. (The third would be to increase our nuclear capabilities, but that would fly in the face of the nuclear proliferation treaties...)
The other nuclear powers would probably be opposed to another state arming a cruise missile with nukes - there was a great deal of effort expended to get rid of all nukes apart from ballistic warheads and gravity bombs. All the SAMs, tac nukes, cruise missile warheads etc.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
The uncertainty of such a system (because of ability to intercept but also because it would rely on our government to actively arm and actively give the word to fire) would mean that not only would it not be a deterrent but actually increase instability.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
There are other factors. AIUI (from a conversation with a mate), all nuclear states are required by convention to tell others of the launch of any large missiles that could be a nuke launch: this is because the major powers have early-warning satellites to detect launches. If it is a scheduled launch, it is essentially ignored. This is one reason NK's missiles are bad news - they don't always follow the protocol.
I'd love to know more, or if I've been sold a pup on this one.
But if you had routinely-armed cruise missiles, the launch of any cruise missile - conventional or not - could be taken as a threat of a nuclear strike. I don't know how the US and Russia got around this, as they both had nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Perhaps the slower speed of cruise missiles and their vulnerability makes them more of a tactical than a strategic weapon?
Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
Then you'd be totally wrong. I've studied the British Empire and 19th and 20th century political and economic history to undergraduate level, and the high watermark was around 1850. After that we faced relative decline industrially and economically vs. ROW.
Hmm, explains why you have empire on your mind.
Yes, our power status in a purely economic sense peaked in the 19th century, but in terms of what we did in the world exercising power, that peaked in the 1940s, arguably.
But what Britain created in the 19th century was a relatively secure, stable and peaceful world. What happened in the 20th when it surrendered its world leadership was a whirlwind of poverty, death and destruction.
The other big difference between the British era and the US era was that Britain never sought total world domination. It was arrogant, exploitative and bullying to a wicked degree in many instances, but it demanded 'the Lion's share' - not by and large to actually rule other countries. Britain aimed for a balance of power, which is what we should still be aiming for.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
....
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
I am quite well read in terms of great power history...
Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
Then you'd be totally wrong. I've studied the British Empire and 19th and 20th century political and economic history to undergraduate level, and the high watermark was around 1850. After that we faced relative decline industrially and economically vs. ROW.
Then your studies were bollox. The word 'relative' is a give away. America for one was tearing itself apart in civil war in 1865. In 1861 its army stood at a massive 16,000. France was in decline and defeat by 1870, at the expense of Prussia. Germany and America were growing countries and powerful ones by the turn of the century, but Britain was still an absolute World Power by 1914 and spent its treasure fighting WW1.
Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
Then you'd be totally wrong. I've studied the British Empire and 19th and 20th century political and economic history to undergraduate level, and the high watermark was around 1850. After that we faced relative decline industrially and economically vs. ROW.
Hmm, explains why you have empire on your mind.
Yes, our power status in a purely economic sense peaked in the 19th century, but in terms of what we did in the world exercising power, that peaked in the 1940s, arguably.
But what Britain created in the 19th century was a relatively secure, stable and peaceful world. What happened in the 20th when it surrendered its world leadership was a whirlwind of poverty, death and destruction.
The other big difference between the British era and the US era was that Britain never sought total world domination. It was arrogant, exploitative and bullying to a wicked degree in many instances, but it demanded 'the Lion's share' - not by and large to actually rule other countries. Britain aimed for a balance of power, which is what we should still be aiming for.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
You don't seem to understand that Trident doesn't have to be fired to be used.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
...
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Total Defence expenditure over 30 years is 1.2 trillion. Any piece of defence expenditure can be added up over its lifetime to arrive at a large figure. The Typhoon, the F35. We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.
The SNP? Crispin Blunt? You are having a laugh. Clueless.
The cost of running the replacement trident is no different to the current. The defence budget will grow over time like all budgets. Inflation will increase all costs. Growth in the economy and hence defence spending if it is maintained as a proportion of GDP does not mean that growth in trident spending must follow. On the contrary trident spending could be expected to decline as a percent of the defence budget as more of the 2% of GDP is spent on other conventional items.
It does quote the MoD though ... "Spread across the 30-year life of the new boats, this represents an annual insurance premium of around 0.13 percent of total government spending."
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
Yes so great we could not beat a handful of Taliban in Afghanistan. WE could not beat an egg.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
...
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Total Defence expenditure over 30 years is 1.2 trillion. Any piece of defence expenditure can be added up over its lifetime to arrive at a large figure. The Typhoon, the F35. We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.
The SNP? Crispin Blunt? You are having a laugh. Clueless.
The cost of running the replacement trident is no different to the current. The defence budget will grow over time like all budgets. Inflation will increase all costs. Growth in the economy and hence defence spending if it is maintained as a proportion of GDP does not mean that growth in trident spending must follow. On the contrary trident spending could be expected to decline as a percent of the defence budget as more of the 2% of GDP is spent on other conventional items.
It does quote the MoD though ... "Spread across the 30-year life of the new boats, this represents an annual insurance premium of around 0.13 percent of total government spending."
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Total Defence expenditure over 30 years is 1.2 trillion. Any piece of defence expenditure can be added up over its lifetime to arrive at a large figure. The Typhoon, the F35. We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.
Borrowing £100 Billion a year , yes get Economics for Dummies
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Total Defence expenditure over 30 years is 1.2 trillion. Any piece of defence expenditure can be added up over its lifetime to arrive at a large figure. The Typhoon, the F35. We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.
Borrowing £100 Billion a year , yes get Economics for Dummies
Are you thick or what? Defence is as per NATO agreement 2% of GDP.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
Yanks would not give us permission to launch it
Dummy. It would mean we had been attacked and the USA donot have the wherewithall to stop us launching.
The US would not give us our toys to play with Russia, unless at its own behest. Not a chance.
Last time you mentioned this you were wittering on about how the fact Apple can block an iPhone signal means the US could stop a Trident missile being fired.
Which was, on so many levels, ridiculous.
I'll give you a hand: look up Permissi(on/ive) Active Link . Which our warheads and missiles do not have. The Yanks are nowhere in our command chain ...
Your hatred of the US is only exceeded by the size of your tinfoil hat.
Buy they could stop maintaining the missiles. We own the car but they pay for the petrol.
Comments
Yes, our power status in a purely economic sense peaked in the 19th century, but in terms of what we did in the world exercising power, that peaked in the 1940s, arguably.
I don't know anyone who would call that minimal.
When you hear this stuff it becomes much less surprising that in the 50s and 60s companies literally chose to go out of business, rather than modernise.
For how much longer can the moderates stay in Corbyn's party, when he clearly wishes to drag it back to the 1970s, before some of them were even born?
The other big difference between the British era and the US era was that Britain never sought total world domination. It was arrogant, exploitative and bullying to a wicked degree in many instances, but it demanded 'the Lion's share' - not by and large to actually rule other countries. Britain aimed for a balance of power, which is what we should still be aiming for.
The cost of running the replacement trident is no different to the current.
The defence budget will grow over time like all budgets. Inflation will increase all costs. Growth in the economy and hence defence spending if it is maintained as a proportion of GDP does not mean that growth in trident spending must follow. On the contrary trident spending could be expected to decline as a percent of the defence budget as more of the 2% of GDP is spent on other conventional items.
The article quotes the defence budget at 34 billion.
Its 45bn.
It does not know what its talking about
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/classic
It does quote the MoD though ... "Spread across the 30-year life of the new boats, this represents an annual insurance premium of around 0.13 percent of total government spending."
Dummy. It would mean we had been attacked and the USA donot have the wherewithall to stop us launching.