£347m nuclear sub contracts detailed

HAVE YOUR SAY

22 May 2012

Kate Hudson should take off her rose tinted specs and look at the world for what it really is! If she goes to some of the nastier places in the world and see what human beings are capable of doing to each other,she might realise that a deterrent is required, because in some parts of the world, the only thing they respect is power and a big stick, why do you think that Saddam was in power for so long, why are there no Democracies in the Middle East?

Perhaps if she was an Israeli she would understand why they have a nuclear deterrent behind their Arrow ABM shield, some people do not put a value on human life the way we do in the west, I have witnessed at first hand what atrocities people will commit in the name of religion, or for their tribe, or country. Wake up and smell the roses Kate.
Rob - Telford

23 May 2012

Frankly , while their is no foreseeable threat of a nuclear attack on U.K., but they should still maintain an independent deterrent in-case China or Iran looses its mind .

But still spending 20 Billion Pounds on a class of weapon that might never see combat is stupid

What the British MOD should do is increase the Number of Astutes from 7 to say 16 and out of these have 5-6 of them armed with 8 Trident Ballistic Missiles with 6-8 nuclear Warheads instead of carrying the 16-24 Tomahawk cruise missiles

As far as I know , a single Astute cost about 1.2 Billion Pounds , So ordering 9 more should not cost more than 18 Billion Pounds and you guys will save on the design cost as well.

This is exactly what India is doing with our Nuclear Submarine Project , considering the fact that we share borders and disputes with Nuclear armed China and Pakistan , so a sea based deterrent is quite important for us .
So what we have done is that while the first 2 Nuke Submarines ie INS Arihant and INS Arhidaman will be full fledge SSBN , but the remaining 6 carry some design and technological improvements as well as a more powerful reactor (110 MW against 83 MW of first 2)
These 6 Subs will have interchangeable weapons ie they will be able to carry either 8 K4/K6 Ballistic missiles with 4000-6000Km range and upto 8 MIRVs , or the subs will carry upto 24 Nirbhay cruise Missiles with 1000 Km range

Hence Indian Navy will have enough subs to perform the two roles which nuclear subs are accorded within the navy ie At sea deterrent and Providing escorts to CBGs since India hopes to operate three Aircraft carrier Battle group by middle of next decade
And we dont need Suclear subs to attack enemy vessels coz we have have 12-14 Diesel SSK to deal with that
Abi N - New Delhi / Dassault India

23 May 2012

Rob.
I think it safe to say Kate Hudson will be aware and has travelled enough to be aware of the wrongs of human kind.

But is it not fair for her to state the same fact I am concerned about. This government is sinking funds into a project that is not sanctioned by vote of public. It appears to have no basis for what UK wants or needs. Therefore I do wonder if the use of public money for this project is almost unlawful the way they are currently going about it.
Degradable - UK

23 May 2012

Degradable - UK

In that case virtually every piece of military equipment purchased by the MoD (EVER) is illegal according to that argument, I did not get asked whether the Army should purchase Mastiff vehicles at twice the cost because it was a UOR or whether we should by Aircraft Carriers, or Typhoon. . .

The sitting government has a duty to defend this nation, I see these advanced contracts part of that process. Whether people think it's a waste of time and money that is fine, my argument with CND is they do not live in the real world, I think their ideals are fantastic, to have a world where there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction would be superb and imagine the equipment we could purchase for our armed forces with the extra money? The point is WMD is out there and there are far too many people (in my opinion) who would be willing to use them if they thought they could get away with it.
Rob - Telford

23 May 2012

Reasonable argument Rob, but the difference this time is the Governement is a coallition. Therefore no mandate exists, and it is now the responsibility of the Liberal to call an election as the Tory party are behaving in an incorrect and dishonest manner.
Which then lends itself tot he consideration of lawfull/unlawfull.

The more I have researched and considered this topic the more I find myself in a state of confusion.
Truly no answer exists for this topic. (Deterrent). It is a position you take, you either support it or you don`t. No one person has yet been proven right or wrong.

An argument put forwards by my better half....
We support the commonwealth with our deterrent capability.

I ask any of you, will we NUKE China if Australia or New Zealand are threatened or even attacked. I would suggest it is 11000 miles
away and most of us courageous Brits will realise that Selfishness is not so bad.

No many issues need o be addressed and these jumped up idiots (I am allowed to state that in this forum without having to apologise ?) in power need to address the nation prior to spending cash on unelected policy.
Degradable - UK

23 May 2012

Degradable - UK

I have to agree with you, I know I can be quite forthright in my opinions on the UK deterrent, I do understand why people are against it and the many different reasons why people are against it ranging from the Nuclear Disarmament, to those who think that the money is simply better spent elsewhere.

I have been called a "Scared Man" in previous discussions on this subject but I really do believe that we need the "insurance policy" that these weapons provide. I have car and house insurance, critical life cover too, which I really begrudge paying and I hope never to have to use it but I have it.

I understand that many people think that in the age of Nuclear armed terrorists with suitcase bombs that a sub-launched SLBM would not have a target to retaliate against, I do think that it is a massive deterrent against rogue states that are actively pursueing Nuclear Weapons. I understand your position entirely and you make a good argument, I just have a different opinion.

I also agree with Graham (different topic slightly) that the funding for the Nuclear deterrent should not come out of the defence budget.
Rob - Telford

23 May 2012

No voter has ever been asked if we should have nuclear weapons, end of story. How many people have been polled to ascertain that the majority of people want to scrap trident. A figure of one to two thousand that most polls will speak to doesn't constitute a majority. So for Kate to be saying the majority of the public implies that a poll of millions has been carried out. Must have slept through that one.
Now isn't the time to be disarming, either nuclear or conventional forces, while other countries strive to join the nuclear club.
JC - UK

24 May 2012

JC
With all respect, I think she could (COULD) be correct on this one, and hence my angle on it.

Tory Government does not have a majority in Parliament. Therefore it stands to reason that they needed to seek a partnership to Govern. Hence a Coalition.

The partners (The Liberals agreed to form a Coalition) on many conditions, but one of them was Nuclear Weapon Renewal after a true look at alternatives.

Therefore it is fair to say, just from a MP count, The government "May" not have enough backing without a vote. Also it is Right, Decent and honourable to abide by your conditions of partnership.

I would suggest the Liberals force an election on the UK over this. It would be an ideal time to seek disarnament as Recession and paying huge sums of money for a "Cold War Weapon" will probably lose public vote.

Interestingly and in contradiction to the above, I find myself against the vote idea for that very reason. I do not think we would get a reasonable debate as most important factor would be presented as Cost. What we could build instead, (Nurseries, Hospitals, Schools etc). I would like us to discuss this matter at a reasonable time, when we can make a gesture to the world that is not based upon us not being able to afford it...

Pobably made a total backside of explaining my thought on this, but suffice to say, they should not continue the build process until the "Review is complete"
For gods sake the cost is equal to a 1/3 of another Astute.. Lets build an additional one of those.
Degradable - UK

24 May 2012

Degradable

All I'm saying is that for anyone to assume that the majority of people want to scrap something without ever being asked is misleading.
As for the political angle on this and money being poured into WMD no British government since introduction of WMD's have ever said they will get rid of them, that's Labour/Tory. I don't include LibDems as they are only a make weight party.
If CND is a serious organisation let them go to the countries that are striving to join the nuclear club and demonstrate there instead of attacking our govs for updating our deterence.
JC - UK

24 May 2012

JC.
But that is in principle what the MP count DOES say.

A party in the prime position in a Coalition does not have have the legitimacy to blunder policy through without the concensus of its partner.

Therefore the Liberals should be standing up to this and saying, lets stop now or we call an election.

One of my major concerns is that, that would not be good for the country right now, as I am convinced the alternative is even worse. I want to see UK pay our debts so my children don`t have to pick up the tab.

Dilemma....
Degradable - UK

24 May 2012

Degradable

An election now would wipe the LibDems out and they know it. Even if Labour got back in they won't scrap Trident. No party has ever gone to the polls saying they will 100% scrap WMD's.
As for cutting our debts that's different than cutting defence, I'd like to see ALL MP's take a pay cut to the national average wage, lose all their expenses and stop giving so called jobs to family members( I know this will never happen). we will then see who is actually serious about being an MP for the right reason and maybe they will then grasp what it is like to be an ordinary family coping today.
My initial point was,however, concerning people claiming things they can't back up, either they should run as a political party and see where it gets them or they should stop making claims they know they can't prove.
JC - UK

06 June 2012

I suppose that while the Russians continue to deploy new strategic nuclear weapon systems we will have to do the same thing.
Defence planning has to be based on worst-case scenarios. Everyone hopes that these weapons will never be used.
In terms of value for money, these submarines probably represent an improvement over huge aircraft carriers which burn massive quantities of fuel and require thousands of people to crew them, and which are of limited relevence to many potential conflict scenarios.
It surprises me that no-one thought of designing the CVF carriers for nuclear power, using two or three submarine power plants of the same type as used in the SSNs and SSBNs.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

11 June 2012

What I would like to know is how the arrogant Kate Hudson can state that the majority of the public want to scrap Trident now,she does not have a clue what the majority want.I have had first hand dealings with CND over many decades and it has not taken rocket science for me to form my own opinion.The vast majority of them demonstrate and moan about a government spending my money to provide an 'insurance' policy over many decades so that my family and I can live in relative peace.However,it is fairly obvious also that the vast majority have no qualms about using my money in benefits to finance their good for nothing lifestyle.Let them demonstrate in China,Russia,Iran etc,then I might give them the time of day,if they come out alive.
Howard N. - Farnborough,Hants,UK

17 June 2012

The UK Nuclear Deterrent is here to stay, and I for one fully back it. Yes it costs a lot, but at the end of the day, the best way to win a nuclear war is not to start one, and the guarantee of mutual destruction goes a long way to ensuring we all remain winners.
Paul Courtenay - UK