• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




British Lawmakers Vote To Renew Nuclear Submarines And Boost Military Expenditure

YouKnowWhatIMeanLike

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,225
One of the first political decisions of the new UK government on Monday was to reinforce it's nuclear firepower. In a bid to maintain Britain's military status Prime Minister Theresa May introduced a bill to renew the Royal Navy submarines at the cost of $54 billion over 20 years. Lawmakers in the House of Commons voted 472 to 117 to go ahead with the increased militarisation of Britain after Brexit.

British lawmakers vote to replace nuclear submarines - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
 
Last edited:


Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,201
This was coming regardless of Brexit.

Considering the current serious threat comes from non-state entities inspired by a medieval barbaric regime in the Midfle east, the move is quite likely in the wrong direction.
 

YouKnowWhatIMeanLike

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,225
This was coming regardless of Brexit.

Considering the current serious threat comes from non-state entities inspired by a medieval barbaric regime in the Midfle east, the move is quite likely in the wrong direction.
while contemplating the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a British nuclear sub only increases the threat here for the UK ...
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,716
$54bn? It'll be 4 times that. At least.

Politicians, eh? Just like in Ireland, not a penny for anything useful, not a penny for services for the population at large but especially for the most vulnerable. Can't afford it. 200bn eurons for corrupt banks and to keep the corrupt quango/trough-snouting gravy train going? Sure, no problem.

In the UK, austerity for all, kill the poor, no money for the peasantry. 200bn for the banks and rich corporations to build weapons that are of no use whatsoever and will never be used? Sure, no problem.

And most people are just too damn Stupid to be able to parse the ridiculous nonsense arguments in favour of Trident, and will swallow any old bollox as long as it comes from their "betters"
 
Last edited:

Strawberry

Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,497
58 of 59 Scottish MPs voted against Trident but the Scots get it parked on their doorstep anyway because their MPs are always out voted.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
24,203
This was coming regardless of Brexit.

Considering the current serious threat comes from non-state entities inspired by a medieval barbaric regime in the Midfle east, the move is quite likely in the wrong direction.
Dunno about that tbh...

I wouldn't trust Putin as far as I could throw him... and China and their ongoing illegal colonisation of the South China Sea probably doesn't bode well either...

And then there's the possibility of Trump getting access to the red buttons too...

Scotland must be feeling mighty p!ssed off though... first they're dragged out of the EU against their collective will and now they're lumbered with a nuclear programme which most of them don't want... other than those living and working around the base of course...
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,997
58 of 59 Scottish MPs voted against Trident but the Scots get it parked on their doorstep anyway because their MPs are always out voted.
Does it really matter , the Americans have the keys anyway , its just the little poodle doing what its told . Another reason the scots need to get the english off their back though.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,208
Twitter
No
Seems like a big waste of money. Fighting the next war using the methods of the last one. 30,000 jobs "depend" on this but they could be retrained?
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,716
Seems like a big waste of money. Fighting the next war using the methods of the last one. 30,000 jobs "depend" on this but they could be retrained?
That's how braindead the pro-Trident arguments are. Let's be extremely laid-back and say this will cost 100bn (we all know it'll be waaay more than that)

3.33 million per job. And that's assuming the real figure is 30,000 a lot of sources are arguing it's more like 13,000.

You've got a cluster of highly trained scientists, engineers, tradesmen, training facilities, port facilities, workshops plant and machinery all in situ and there's no way to rapidly develop alternative sources of productive useful employment for less than 3 million per job?

It's arseology even the Sindo would be ashamed of.
 

Strawberry

Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,497
That's how braindead the pro-Trident arguments are. Let's be extremely laid-back and say this will cost 100bn (we all know it'll be waaay more than that)

3.33 million per job.

You've got a cluster of highly trained scientists, engineers, tradesmen, training facilities, workshops plant and machinery all in situ and there's no way to rapidly develop alternative sources of productive useful employment for less than 3 million per job?

It's arseology even the Sindo would be ashamed of.
You could give them all a million each redundancy and it would be more cost effective.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,321
Dunno about that tbh...

I wouldn't trust Putin as far as I could throw him... and China and their ongoing illegal colonisation of the South China Sea probably doesn't bode well either...
And you trust the US who are propping a far right-wing government in the Ukraine that has fascists holding the justice and defence ministeries - and have just put a NATO first-strike nuclear missile force 'live' in Romania and pointed them at the heart of Russia.

Do you also trust the USA who have bribed, blackmailed and cajoled the Phillippines and Vietnam to pursue age old territorial disputes with China over rocks in the South China Sea - that have an arc of military bases from Australia to Afghanistan targeting China that Obama calls a 'pivot' - that has run a major military exercise in recent times that involved blockading the Malacca Straits where most of China's oil and trade travels - that has built more nuclear warheads than any previous US president - that is now developing a 'smart' nuclear missile with a small yield warhead and precision targeting that, as the American military now claim, makes the use of nuclear weapons an 'option'.

The western media portray Russia and China as the aggressors and the USA and Britain etc as the defenders of democracy - the reality is that we have different competing imperial power blocs jockeying for control of different parts of the world and racheting up tensions across the globe. The renewal of Trident is part of this power play - and the people who will suffer are the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed.
 
R

Ramps

Seems like a big waste of money. Fighting the next war using the methods of the last one. 30,000 jobs "depend" on this but they could be retrained?
Do you have a link re that figure? What's the breakdown?
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,434
You've got a cluster of highly trained scientists, engineers, tradesmen, training facilities, port facilities, workshops plant and machinery all in situ and there's no way to rapidly develop alternative sources of productive useful employment for less than 3 million per job?
And all the business in the region that depend upon the base and the money the base pumps into them...

You missed this story in your absence, or were you just avoiding it?

http://www.politics.ie/forum/rest-world/246711-new-zealand-flag-referendum-time-change.html
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,366
They're going to need that deterrent.

Once Assad is gone it's Iran next.

You can't sit at the big boys table acting the bully when you have no nuclear deterrent.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,434
They're going to need that deterrent.

Once Assad is gone it's Iran next.

You can't sit at the big boys table acting the bully when you have no nuclear deterrent.
Poor old pacifist, Assad :-(
 

Cai

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
7,972
Dunno about that tbh...

I wouldn't trust Putin as far as I could throw him... and China and their ongoing illegal colonisation of the South China Sea probably doesn't bode well either...

And then there's the possibility of Trump getting access to the red buttons too...

Scotland must be feeling mighty p!ssed off though... first they're dragged out of the EU against their collective will and now they're lumbered with a nuclear programme which most of them don't want... other than those living and working around the base of course...
Historically the UK has a terrible record when it comes to international aggression, & have attacked around 90% of the nations now in existence. Yet we're supposed to have these things to defend ourselves from countries with a far better record.

It would be understandable I suppose for the likes of Iran to want to acquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves from the likes of the UK.
 

blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
23,298
58 of 59 Scottish MPs voted against Trident but the Scots get it parked on their doorstep anyway because their MPs are always out voted.
Indeed - I bet the Scots will refuse to take the associated jobs on principle! And of course if the UK was ever in a situation when we needed to use them, an exception could be made if the enemy promised only to invade Scotland. Scots would never be so hypocritical as to expect to be defended with weapons they didn't want.

If only there was some way the Scots could have been asked if they were happy with this situation, like a referendum on independence, for example.

That way, they could have their say and we'd know if they considered that disadvantage was outweighed by the advantages of being in the UK.

Of course those bastards at Westminster would never allow such a vote, so I suppose we'll never know...
 

im axeled

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
29,724
Seems like a big waste of money. Fighting the next war using the methods of the last one. 30,000 jobs "depend" on this but they could be retrained?
retrained to do what, back in the 90's dell were bringing in scots from the dunfreese and galloway on contract work, they were glad to come over, for most it was a free holliday, as they were mostly put up in hotels, very few that did not drink etc, the night club they frequented became known as tablet heaven
 

daveL

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
19,593
money for guns, bombs and death

no money for schools, hospitals and services

twisted world
 

bonkers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
24,491
Indeed - I bet the Scots will refuse to take the associated jobs on principle! And of course if the UK was ever in a situation when we needed to use them, an exception could be made if the enemy promised only to invade Scotland. Scots would never be so hypocritical as to expect to be defended with weapons they didn't want.

If only there was some way the Scots could have been asked if they were happy with this situation, like a referendum on independence, for example.

That way, they could have their say and we'd know if they considered that disadvantage was outweighed by the advantages of being in the UK.

Of course those bastards at Westminster would never allow such a vote, so I suppose we'll never know...
If the UK or anyone else uses them we're all toast.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top