Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care
to explain what value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly
having spent £17.6 billion on the current Trident programme, at the
cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

What sort of military spending has been of actual use since the last WW?

What was done in Malaya, Kenya, the Falklands etc.

That spent on conventional weapons, etc. And the conventional
side of the navy. And in both of those, we are badly under
strength at the present time. I'd hate to think what the
outcome would be today if there was another Falklands war.

There wouldn't be one. Britain would just accept the fact that it
didn't have the military capacity to do anything about it and would
just do what even Maggie did, hand Hong Kong back to China.

So spending a large proportion of the military cake
on a 'deterrent' with no other uses is a nonsense,

Particularly when with Trident there is nothing to deter.

while starving the important side of cash.

It makes absolutely no sense to be ****ing an immense amount of
money against the wall so Britain can hang on to a few useless islands
in the south atlantic that it never had any right to in the first place.

given that the Soviet Union never even
existed throughout the whole of that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.

Neither of which is likely to start a nuclear war. If the religious
terrorists
of the middle east were capable of it, they'd already have done so.

Its more complicated than that with access to what is needed to do that.

And Trident would make absolutely no difference to middle
eastern terrorists doing what they chose to do anyway.

Even the vastly more capable US nuclear
system had absolutely no effect on 9/11 etc.