http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/18/truth...ing-nukes/

Quote:According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.

Prominent names include Lord Hollick, a Labour Peer who is a director of Honeywell. Lord (William) Hague, chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). RUSI, who are supposedly impartial US and UK government defence advisors, are sponsored by Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls-Royce.

But one of the most telling individuals is Labour’s Lord Hutton, defence secretary under Gordon Brown. He is an adviser to Bechtel, consultant for Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA). The revolving door (the phrase used to describe MP’s who, once finished in parliament, go into jobs related to their previous role) has never spun so quickly.

Quote:With reference to the role of multinational financial institutions, all the companies listed above, aside from being involved in Trident, share one other common denominator. They are all financed, or owned, by UK banks. Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report by Don’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry.

What this report doesn’t cover, however, is these institutions involvement in Russia’s nuclear weapons industry.

Aside from financing state-owned Russian companies like Rostec State Corporation (heavily involved with the country’s military) via their funding of, and credit trading with, Rostec financiers Novikombank, these banks have directly financed the Trident equivalent in Russia.

Quote:In layman’s terms? We, the public, pay for Trident directly via taxation. We also paid for RBS, directly through taxation. In turn, RBS directly fund (with UK taxpayer money) our “enemy’s” nuclear weapon systems.

Essentially, the UK taxpayer is paying for both sides in this perceived nuclear stand-off.

I'm all for having a nuclear arsenal but if we're never going to use why not have the cheap air delivered option. A dozen or so nuclear armed bombers should suffice. especially with a fighter screen. What I'm saying is get the Vulcan bombers back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/d...light.html

(July 19, 2016 at 2:41 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I'm all for having a nuclear arsenal but if we're never going to use why not have the cheap air delivered option. A dozen or so nuclear armed bombers should suffice. especially with a fighter screen. What I'm saying is get the Vulcan bombers back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/d...light.html

Or we could have both. Double the nukes.

I don't know that you can pay for half the nukes........particularly in light of your recent decisions......if we couldn't count on your subservience I doubt we'd rake you as generously as we do.

(July 19, 2016 at 11:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: The point of those subs isn't actually to be sneaky.  They're part of the whole MAD thing from the cold war...where you want the other guy to know that they exist, that even if you managed to obliterate their country in a massive, unilateral nuclear strike.....you're still going to get roasted yourself.  Defense isn't the word I'd use for that, because ostensibly, they won't be used in that capacity unless there's nothing left to defend in the first place.  I don;t know if they put doubts in the heart of the enemy, or whatever the official line about them might be..either.  Anyone who decides to nuke the UK is going to have bigger problems than 4 cheap ass ohio knock offs......

I think it's more a point of national pride, and of wanting to be at that table.

Sneaky, yes it is. It's not only that they exist but where they exist. Why do you think they travel/patrol clandestinely, location unknown? They become a non target threat.

Meh, you've got a different idea for sneaky than I do.  We know where 3 of 4 of them are, at all times.....and we know that the fourth exists...and due to the nature of an icbm..it doesn't actually matter where it is. As far as non-target threats..if someone offs you, the US is probably the largest "non-target threat" that's going to retaliate on your behalf. These subs, altogether...are very literally one single undergunned US Ohio Class....and ofc there's no point in having these weapons unless people know that you have them. Just not alot of sneaking going on.

I just don't understand why the UK would spend that money, now of all times...on a cheaper, frankly...insignificant, version of what they can already count on. Why not use it to handle problems that actually are relevant to you..and let your friends do what they're good at in the first place? Let us waste -our- money on this shit...we have more money to waste....and we make better weapons (which is why you buy them from us).

(July 19, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, you've got a different idea for sneaky than I do.  We know where 3 of 4 of them are, at all times.....and we know that the fourth exists...and due to the nature of an icbm..it doesn't actually matter where it is.

No shit.

You know...we...as in the US, probably know where the fourth is too...just in case you need tech support on all that merchandise.

(July 19, 2016 at 3:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You know...we...as in the US, probably know where the fourth is too...just in case you need tech support on all that merchandise.

Well done again, for stating the obvious.

(July 19, 2016 at 5:59 am)Alex K Wrote:

(July 19, 2016 at 5:40 am)Mathilda Wrote: Patrols only started in 1994. Now we're going to spend 205 billion UKP to replace it.

Think what that 205 billion could do if it was invested in research and education. But no, we'll spend it on a useless weapon of mass destruction because it helps some politicians in Westminster wave their cocks around and feel better about their jobs.

The 205 billion or the equivalent could do great things, but is getting rid of the stockpile a viable global policy option right now?

Why wouldn't it be? Aside from rogue states acquiring them and remaining the only ones to have them, I see no potential downside. And this one could be managed if the necessary effort went into it, I imagine.