Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 08:51 AM Oct 2015

Exclusive: UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected

Source: Reuters

The overall cost of replacing and maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent will reach 167 billion pounds ($256 billion), much more than expected, according to a lawmaker's and Reuters' calculations based on official figures.

If the figure is confirmed, it is likely to spur critics who say Britain should not be committing to spending billions of pounds on defense at a time when they say deep cuts under the government's "austerity" policies are hurting families.

Some military officials also say the money would be better spent on maintaining the army and on more conventional technology, which have also faced cuts.

Until now, Prime Minister David Cameron's government has said replacing the ageing fleet of four submarines which carry nuclear warheads to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent would cost an estimated 15-20 billion pounds.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/25/us-britain-defence-trident-exclusive-idUSKCN0SJ0EP20151025

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. Nuclear weapons manufacture is the greatest money laundering scheme ever devised, and the
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:35 AM
Oct 2015

greatest scam ever invented the planet.

Not to mention the planet's greatest threat....nuclear weapons is terrorism gone nuclear.

What entity is the UK and others so frightened of that they would spend such treasure to defend from?

progree

(11,007 posts)
5. In U.S. terms, with the same per-capita spending, that would be about $1.28 trillion
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:00 PM
Oct 2015

$256 billion doesn't sound all that awful, but the U.K. has only about a 64 million population, or 1/5 of the U.S. population, so only 1/5 as many people to share that spending burden.

Scaling that up to U.S. population levels (while maintaining the same per-capita spending), that comes to $256 billion * 5 = $1.28 Trillion. And that's not the entire defense spending, just the nuclear deterrent part of it.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
6. The chances of Iran getting a nuclear bomb and nuking London are probably quite slim,
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:22 PM
Oct 2015

but even slimmer if the UK has a nuclear deterrent. Arguably this is money well spent.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
7. More British Interest in Bombs and Submarines?
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 04:22 PM
Oct 2015

We have been through this before, with Sir Humphrey bravely fighting common sense:

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Exclusive: UK nuclear det...