UK Leaders debate - April 2nd 2015

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Damn right Trident should be scrapped, the UK government cannot even fund their armed forces and yet they want to waste all that money just to look big in the world.

What would be the savings in scrapping the 4 Vanguard submarines vs continued usage?

"Scrapping" is a pricey thing to do.

The UK & Norwegian government shared the cost of decommissioning a "November class" submarine for the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union..... This cost was £stg 3.2 billion.

The US has to set aside $1billion+ to cover costs for decommissioning their vessels when they age out.

A single Vanguard costs about £300m per year to run.

Its seems foolish to scrap forever the UK's best form of national defence to essentially save very little really just to placate the cotrarian-for-the-sake-of-it (and irrational) whimsy of the SNP.

If you say the UK can't fund its armed forces, that's true, but its because it chooses not to & because of its procurement attachment with BAE.

A Dub in Glasgo

WoMD are from the medieval times, it is also a luxury the UK clearly cannot afford. The Tories are cutting most people to the bone and have these fanciful WoMD to try and demonstrate that they are important in the world. If this was in Africa, people would be condemning the regime for concentrating on their fancy toys over providing for their people.

The Tories are choosing to cut their armed forces and spend the tons of cash on toys that cannot be used. If that was a business, it would be bankrupt

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories are choosing to cut their armed forces and spend the tons of cash on toys that cannot be used.

MAD prevents their use & that's the whole point!

As for the other toys, what do you think won't be used?

Type-26, Asutet class, F35, QE2 carriers, all will be used...

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

MAD prevents their use & that's the whole point!

So you support every other country having this MAD?

As for the other toys, what do you think won't be used?

Type-26, Asutet class, F35, QE2 carriers, all will be used...

I did not include any of these but please outline when & how these will be used

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So you support every other country having this MAD?

Until no one has any, I'd have no issue with the UK having a nuclear deterrent (where I British).

A submarine is the best way to do the job.

I did not include any of these but please outline when & how these will be used

If you need examples of when how a fighter plane, an aircraft carrier, a heavy frigate & a cruise missile submarine could be used, then you either lack all imagination or have just woken up & havent heard yet about every armed conflict for the past 6 decades!

But for the hard of memory below is the order of battle for a combined arms engagement by her majesty's forces.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Telic_order_of_battle

spend the tons of cash on toys that cannot be used.

Which recent MOD purchases can't be used btw?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Until no one has any, I'd have no issue with the UK having a nuclear deterrent (where I British).

That is not what was asked

If you need examples of when how a fighter plane, an aircraft carrier, a heavy frigate & a cruise missile submarine could be used, then you either lack all imagination or have just woken up & havent heard yet about every armed conflict for the past 6 decades!

You are the one that listed all those, now you are saying I lack the imagination to see how they can be used?? Would that be invading other countries for those who lack the sophistication of your knowledge?

Which recent MOD purchases can't be used btw?

WoMD (unless you think that it means something else?)

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is not what was asked

Well.... Not sure what it has to to with the UK GE, but I'm not particularly bothered personally who has nukes.... It doesn't keep me awake.

WoMD

Indeed.
So what other expensive toys can the MOD not use?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well.... Not sure what it has to to with the UK GE,

You want the UK taxpayers to fund WoMD as you believe they can never be used due to MAD. You want to do that whilst cutting everything to the bone. It has a lot to do with the GE as evidenced by the panic in the Tories today. It is about priorities and WoMD should not take priority

Lemming

And what do you propose the replacement for Trident be exactly? And how much money will be saved from the scrapping of Trident after everything has been decommissioned, scrapped (literally) and facilities shut down/removed and staff moved elsewhere or made redundant.

To say that Trident should be scrapped and not replaced is batsh*t lunacy of the highest order, doubly so given the rise of Putin's novorussia pet project and his threats of using nuclear weapons over any push-back on the annexation of Crimea.

gallag

If we scrap trident we may as well scrap the entire army, say for example Russia started testing the polish border, the UK as Polands strongest European allay can back them up and between France, the UK and Poland we could easily deal with the situation, if the hippies had there way and France and the UK got rid of their nukes all Russia would have to do is use very small but deviating nuclear strategic warheads to decimate the allied forces and even the most ardent anti nuke person must realise that having no path to defeat Russia in all out war would embolden Putin.

Is it also a coincidence that the usual Brit haters or republicans are also the ones that seem so passionate about this subject, I realise a weakened UK would make these people happy but if they thought about it realistically a strong European defence is critical to their own survival, if it came to the crunch I would not count on the Americans having the stomach to risk nuclear war to protect us and nor do I blame them, we need to assure our own security and that means maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You want the UK taxpayers to fund WoMD as you believe they can never be used due to MAD.

Yes, though what I think matters little in Downing Street or Whitehall (probably).

You want to do that whilst cutting everything to the bone.

"Cut to the bone"?
Says who?
Probably just those whose snout is in the trough & feel threatened.
The truth isn't reflected by the false narrative.

Uk government spending is going in one direction, and that isn't downward.


So, what's the vibe in Glasgow as what's a more effective deterrent than the Vanguard subs?

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, what's the vibe in Glasgow as what's a more effective deterrent than the Vanguard subs?

Surely NATO membership and the oft-referenced special relationship in themselves would serve as a deterrent. One can be against the renewal of trident without adopting the Green position of turning military bases into nature reserves.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely NATO membership and the oft-referenced special relationship in themselves would serve as a deterrent.

No, the "article 5" common defence thing doesn't cover nukes.

The US or France are under no obligation to provide a nuclear retaliatory response on behalf of the UK..... (I think I read somewhere the US nuclear doctrine prohibits it anyway)

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes, though what I think matters little in Downing Street or Whitehall (probably).


"Cut to the bone"?
Says who?
Probably just those whose snout is in the trough & feel threatened.
The truth isn't reflected by the false narrative.

Says me, you want to spend billions of ££££ on this vanity project whilst the worst cuts to pay for it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31126283

Uk government spending is going in one direction, and that isn't downward.

Neatly demonstrating the failure of Osborne and the lunacy of spending billions on this vanity project

So, what's the vibe in Glasgow as what's a more effective deterrent than the Vanguard subs?

Ahh, just little things like no invasions of other countries, saves money and lives as well.. bonus. Amazing the extent to which military fanboys will justify slaughter

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Says me, you want to spend billions of ££££ on this vanity project whilst the worst cuts to pay for it

What cuts?
UK government expenditure is on the up & up & aside from a blip in 2012 has been for many years..

lunacy of spending billions on this vanity project

But no monies have yet been spent on Trident replacement?
So what are you on about?

Back to unanswered questions though.....

You say the Vanguard sub's should be scrapped.... How much money will this save her majesties exchequer?

And once scrapped, what alternative do you want in instead?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What cuts?

Maybe you should come over and visit to see

But no monies have yet been spent on Trident replacement?
So what are you on about?

Money is spent on maintaining the existing Trident solution and money is spent on preparing for the renewal and money will be spent on actually renewing, what are you on about?

Back to unanswered questions though.....

You say the Vanguard sub's should be scrapped.... How much money will this save her majesties exchequer?

They are life expired and should be decommissioned, the decommissioning cost is the same if they are renewed or do you expect the life expired assets to magically become unexpired once new assets are available?

And once scrapped, what alternative do you want in instead?

This was answered earlier, do keep up

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This was answered earlier, do keep up

Actually no, it wasn't. At least not by you when it was put to you as far back as I can see. Care to link us to the exact post?