Trident - the part-time bomb

Old joke -  what are you doing ? Sprinkling woofle dust. Why are you sprinkling woofle dust ? To keep the elephants away  of course ! But there aren't any elephants in Clacton.  Just goes to show it works.
Trident is much the same, it has deterred attacks on the UK in much the same way no one has nuked Peru, i.e. not at all.

The Government has published a review on possible options to replace the Trident Nuclear Missile System with  a slightly less expensive alternative.  The Conservatives have already denounced the option as a part-time deterrent.

Trident is inherently useless.  Lets save the money and spend it on something else. My favourite is more overseas aid.  Funny how people you are helpful too are less likely to go to war with you.

Trident - a solution looking for a problem

Trident, David Cameron Prime Minister of the UK asks: "Does anyone seriously argue that it would be wise for Britain, faced with this evolving threat today, to surrender our deterrent?”
Well of course they do David.

Only the retention of our independent deterrent makes clear to any adversary that the devastating cost of an attack on the UK or its allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain,” he says.

In Dave's view countries like North Korea and Iran might do what exactly if the UK didn't have trident ? 

North Korea has already threatend to launch a nuclear strike at the USA which in case you hadn't noticed has a lot more nuclear weapons than the UK. 

Sorry to have to quote Black Adder - but explaining to the rather dim George the origins of the first world war, Black Adder says: "The idea was that there would be two great power blocks with us, the Russians and the French on one side and the Germans and the the Austro-Hungarians on the other, so that each side would act as the other's deterrant. There was just one slight flaw in the plan."
Baldrick: "What was that?"
Blackadder: "It was bollocks."

Deterence didn't work because people are people.

Trident - Oh Ed, not you too ?

It has been announced, leaked, hinted, suggested, confirmed, take your pick that the Labour Party will go into the next General elections supporting a like for like replacement of the Trident Nuclear Submarines and Missiles.

£25 billion is the cost - although of course estimates of the 'true' cost vary.

It is a reminder hopefully for those who view the Labour Party with rose-tinted spectacles (are their any left ? yes a few) that in many respects they remain incredibly similar to the Conservatives, worse really, because undoubtedly most conservatives MPs think Trident is useful, whereas most Labour MPs one hopes know it to be a white elephant but are still haunted by the electoral crushing they got from supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980's so they go along with supporting it.

It will be interesting as welfare cuts bite to wonder who will spot the connection between saving money on benefits so the Government can spend money on Trident.   Just a reminder, the Government is currently spending over £2 billion pounds a week more than it gets in in taxes. It can only do this by borrowing money.  So the money to pay for Trident will be borrowed, making it doubly wasteful.

Trident

Trident - I just don't get it. I have never supported Trident - I never understood how anyone thought that the UK should have the right to plunge the world into a nuclear war.

Now years after the cold war has ended, the Conservatives are pressing on with plans to replace Trident. Why ?

A Conservative was on the radio explaining that we couldn't foresee the enemies the UK would face in 30-50 years and an independent nuclear capability was needed to act as a deterrent.  Top of the list is to deter terrorists and 'rogue states'. 

I wonder why it is that the USA, which has considerably more nuclear missiles than the UK was still unable to deter the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ?

UK nuclear missiles didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands.

Can we destroy a country, a region or perhaps the world because a rogue state uses a nuclear weapon ?
Replacing Trident will be spending money we can't afford on something we don't need.

Mrs Thatcher and saving money

Files released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule include a note about the cost of refurbishing the Prime Minister’s official residence, in which Baroness Thatcher pointed out that she and her husband, Denis, used only one bedroom and already had their own crockery. She wrote: “I will pay for the ironing boards and other things, like sufficient linen for the one bedroom we use. The rest can go back into stock. MT”

So the nation saved £19 on the ironing board, and it was instead paid for by Mrs Thatcher, who was married to Millionaire Denis. The cost of the entire refurbishment is listed at less than £2000, far less than the £600,00 refit for David Cameron.

Ironically, it is the same Mrs Thatcher who authorised the purchase of Trident Nuclear Submarines - for what even in those days was a cost of £10 billion pounds.

There is a saying look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. Save all the small sums and they will add up to a big sum.
In this case I think the appropriate phrase is penny wise - pound foolish.
Save the little sums but waste the big ones !