bazmeistergen said:
CrazyHorse said:
The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).
The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.
@FootballFan
It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.
|
the 97 billion figure comes directly from the debate... no-one disputed it that I can recall... do we not have ICBMs in this country anymore?
|
Yep just checked it, Clegg said £100Bn over 25 years. Although I don't think that's completely accurate. The figure Clegg was using was taken from Greenpeace figures I think and is taking into account money which will have to be spent regardless of whether Trident is renewed or not.
I'm fairly sure Trident is our only launch mechanism now, no ICBMs.
