Cost of Trident vs Brexit Divorce Bill

[diseasex]

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

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

[Mordac]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ar-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...

[shaunbhoy]

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

[Paddy]

Except that it doesn't.

HTH

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

[northernladyuk]

Except that it doesn't.

HTH

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

[WTFH]

Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm

[WordIsBond]

Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.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]

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

[shaunbhoy]

Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.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

[WordIsBond]

Like this one

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).