Thursday, July 18, 2013
Trident Replacement - Costs Examined
I found this article on the Register about the cost of a direct Trident replacement and alternatives informative.
There are arguments against us having nukes - mainly either that us giving them up is about the only thing that might persuade others to do so (or at least discourage new countries from joining the nuclear club. Alternatively that our own government already has such a record of war crimes, genocide, and dissecting living human beings (in Yugoslavia) that under no circumstances should any of the approved parties have a finger on the trigger.
There is also an argument for a more flexible capacity - these nuclear submarine system was originally designed for an era when our only retaliation could be the wiping out of enemy cities as they wiped out ours. Those missiles were sufficiently inaccurate that you couldn't guarantee to hit a smaller target. Nowadays with preprogrammed or unmanned strike drones it is possible to fly a bomb onto the desk of a President so the capacity for warheads of very low capacity, often but not always sub-nuclear, enhances our options.
However what the article proves is that neither argument should be pursued on a cost basis. Maintaining the current 4 submarines is cost effective, if only because the infrastructure exists.
The Lib-Dem option of 3 would save very little money. Also, because it would mean there would be bound to be times when there was no submarine on station, it would not deter a surprise attack by an aggressor. In fact the only case where 3 submarines are as good as 4 is if we can guarantee that a nuclear war would only take place at a time of our choosing, which means where we are the aggressor. Typical of the openly pro-Nazi, genocide enthusiast pseudo-Liberals that they embrace the one alternative to current Trident that is of use primarily to those promoting atrocities.