Nuclear Missile Armed Submarines To Be Given Go-Ahead

PA/Huffington Post UK  |  Posted: Updated: 21/05/2012 11:10

The replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent is expected to come a step closer on Tuesday when ministers announce the signing of multi-million contracts to design new submarines.

Reports suggest that the Ministry of Defence has placed £350m of work to design the new vessels, while British defence companies are also expected to be asked to begin work on their nuclear propulsion systems.

The MoD said that details of the contracts, including the companies, which have been asked to do the work, are expected to be announced in a written statement to Parliament tomorrow.

The announcement could cause tensions within the coalition Government. The coalition agreement stated that the Liberal Democrats would "make the case for alternatives" to full-scale replacement of the ageing Trident system, which would be scrutinised to ensure it represented value for money.

Conservatives are committed to a full renewal of the UK's fleet of four Vanguard-class submarines by 2028, but Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey has been conducting a review of possible cheaper alternatives.

The first of the four Vanguards had been due to leave service in 2022, but the Government extended the vessels' lives as part of the 2010 Defence and Security Review. Final decisions about ordering replacements do not have to be taken until 2016, after the next General Election.

FOLLOW UK POLITICS

The replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent is expected to come a step closer on Tuesday when ministers announce the signing of multi-million contracts to design new submarines. Reports sugges...
The replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent is expected to come a step closer on Tuesday when ministers announce the signing of multi-million contracts to design new submarines. Reports sugges...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 133
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
SecularAdvocate
Media Watcher
12:45 PM on 05/22/2012
Speak softly, and carry a big stick.

Technology gets more sophisticated much faster than people do these days.

Which is why I so often wonder "Where's a baseball bat when you really need one?"
photo
vividrick
I came, I saw...I had a cup of tea!
11:52 AM on 05/22/2012
I'm still awaiting to hear of the Lib Dems 'alternatives' for these proposals. They better be good, but like you might expect, will fall on deaf ears in this sham of a coalition! I'm not totally against the need of defence, & defence spending, but BAE Systems & their conduct have been way too suspect of recent for my liking.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lord Justice Wolf
10:18 AM on 05/22/2012
Why spend Billions on numerous Nukes when we feel it is okay to invade countries who only think about building one, (1)? If 1 is needed to frighten the west into a frenzy then why have thousands like we do? Why not keep our Trident and the ones we have, give them a quick respray, tell the world we are building knew ones and .....DONT? Who is to know? Do we send inventory's out to prospective enemies? Russia, China and even America with its 'friendly fire policy' know we have nukes so if we are worried enough to invade islamic countries when they build a tiny little one with old material, tiny and old but significant enough to do severe damage, then won't they fear us because we have not tiny little ones but huge expensive much more recent ones that could wipe out the planet? Doesn't make sense to me? Looks like a scam to syphon off funds we haven't got? When our troops do go to war they always complain they haven't got the right equipment or its crap and breaks? Nar Ide say keep the old crap that we won't use anyway and give it a repaint something nice and pink would do the job.
09:23 AM on 05/22/2012
They must be plain bonkers, I thought we were hard up, yet here we go again spending £billions on weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever. They are not a deterrent and we would never ever use them. Why not grow up,accept that we are no longer a wealthy world power and start by looking after our elderly with decent pensions and proper care.
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
09:46 AM on 05/22/2012
Now that's what I call a sensible comment - well said - someone who actually thinks before they write - happy to be your first 'fan'...
10:01 AM on 05/22/2012
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE,THEY ARE WORTH EVERY PENNY.
VINCE EX SUBMARINER
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Saint wright
Dyslexic old chippy
09:19 AM on 05/22/2012
this will give the taliban a bloody nose what?
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
09:57 AM on 05/22/2012
Aye.. it'll sure stop them from scuba diving off the west coast of scotland.
10:30 AM on 05/22/2012
First sensible comment i,ve heard from a scotsman for many a year.
09:00 AM on 05/22/2012
Total Hypocrisy. This Country thinks its ok to ban others from having nuclear weapons and then goes ahead and does this. Absolutely dreadful. While the Country is going through its worst period of financial difficulties in decades, the Govt plunge us even deeper into debt with this announcement.
All this will do will simply infuriate certain Countries into developing their own WMDs.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
09:57 AM on 05/22/2012
Have another read of the Non-Profileration Treaty. That's the way it is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mickbono
huff is crap
08:30 AM on 05/22/2012
this government cant look after the elderly, the disabled but they can spend billions building subs nobody needs or wants ,
12:59 AM on 05/22/2012
Complete and utter waste of money.Who are the Countries that we are going to nuke.In this land,the enemy is within,and we should be prepared for that threat.
07:38 AM on 05/22/2012
Knowing that the Lunatics are already running the Asylum, this decision doesn't surprise me in the least. Ever tried 'Firing a Warning Shot' with a Nuke ? What do you do ? Put a little note inside, saying 'Boo!', instead of a warhead ?
It's impossible to have a totally flexible range of response options, capable of gradual escalation, with a Submarine !
Otherwise, Why would the U.S. go to the expense of building effing HUMUNGOUS Carriers, capable of altering the whole balance of air superiority in an area ?
Do you really think the Falklands would have been in any danger, if we had had something the size of a Nimitz Class Carrier to send ?
A much cheaper option would be to extend the life of the Vanguard Class of SSBN, which could easily continue to defend us, against any likely strike, and use the money saved to complete and FULLY equip the proposed Carriers.
Oh ! and STOP playing ' The World Policeman ' we can't afford it in Lives or Money, anymore !
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
09:48 AM on 05/22/2012
good comment - I have just become your first 'fan' for your incisive comment...
06:27 PM on 05/22/2012
Extending the lives of the existing submarines would not be a solution, it would just delay having to make a decision for a few years. The out of service dates have already been put back five years, and to extend this any further would require a lengthy and expensive service life extension programme. Even then you would not be able to get more than an additional ten years out of the boats.

It is also a misconception that cancelling the Trident replacement would release resources for conventional equipment. The two are completely separate, not competing alternatives. If replacement were cancelled, the money would be taken out of the defence budget and used elsewhere. There would be little if any benefit for the services in terms of increased resources.
08:35 PM on 05/21/2012
This is the best defense we have and actually provide the best defense per £ spent. A sub can sit anywhere in the world undetected and launch missiles at whomever. The world we live in is becoming a very dangerous place and I am very happy that they all know that somewhere we have these subs and believe me the way the world is going we may well need them.
08:52 PM on 05/21/2012
Yes its always safer when you have weapons of mass destruction, stopped the Argies invading the Falklands.

Glad to live in non - nuclear New Zealand , don't think i will able to comment on what its like to be nuked or what a wonderful and cheap solution it is, just glad i am not paying for it,good luck with that one.
09:02 PM on 05/21/2012
Actually Nuclear Weapons have probably prevented many full scale wars. You are fortunate to live out the way and not really care about the injustice that goes on in some of these other countries. You're alright Jack and that's what matters. Let's just let dictators murder innocents, slowly take over their neighbours, grow in power and then see what happens. I applaud your sentiment but reality is a little different.
09:40 PM on 05/21/2012
good for you. Unfortunately we share the same atmosphere. All that will happen is that if its a world wide exchange of nuclear weapons new zealanders will die the longest lingering death. Here are two words for you "nuclear" "winter" No sun, no food, radiation sickness, starvation
Good luck
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
11:16 PM on 05/21/2012
That's 1970 speaking. It has no effect on a religious crazy with exploding underpants.
07:19 PM on 05/21/2012
Dont worry, they are to be "green and sustainable", powered by windturbines with a back up generator of compressed fish farts, and the main armament will consist of 22 missiles with dangerous warheads containing 6 individual, multiple re-entry PERMANENT, yes permanent (ever so nasty i know, nearly impossible to remove from furniture) paint bombs! Thank the lord for the LIb Dems defence policy input!.........

Ah if only we could live in a nice fluffy world eh, where we all love each other, hold hands and dance and hug!!! But alas we dont, we live in a world where people have a certain penchance to want to kill each other, on a massive and continued scale, so unfortunatly the process of replacement boats must start, in order to provide the ultimate deterrant, as the future is the most uncertain and chaotic since the end of the second world war. Not a particular fan of the nuclear deterrant but grown up enough to know its neccassary!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
06:01 PM on 05/21/2012
It employs hundreds of thousands is why.
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
05:31 PM on 05/21/2012
...and so this dangerous, unnecessary and tremendously expensive madness continues...

In these days of severe austerity and increasing depravation for the most vulnerable in society, you'd have thought that we could have found a better use for £190bn, now wouldn't you..??

Timely reminder that we are not a world power any longer and that our scarce resources should be spent on infrastructure and energy security, rather than building even more WMDs to fight yesterday's conflicts...

...give me strength...
07:31 PM on 05/21/2012
maybe we might just need them, or do we just put our heads in the sand and hope the next war will not happen, ww3 will happen, many countries fighting all the time, History repeating itself time over.
07:54 PM on 05/21/2012
Correct TEMP, but dont expect to convince the wind farm hangers on mate!!! It is hard to prove but (as we are all not dead) "mutual assured destruction" has kept the "peace" between the superpowers since the early 1950s. The world is a lot more of a dangerous and uncertain place now than it has ever been, and expensive as it may be, the ultimate deterrant is just that, the ultimate deterrant. But the defence policy of the Libs, the greens (do they have one?) the "head in the sand and hope the baddies go away" should certainly not be adopted or even encouraged....lol...
08:39 PM on 05/21/2012
yes we just let our military become outdated, and then when Iran have WMD along with the whole middle east, and they decide they hate us even more than they do now, then what ? The world is always at war and like it or not we have to be ready to defend ourselves at all times. And if you believe the middle east is yesterdays conflict you are sadly mistaken. The uprisings that are happening and war across the region is probably just the start.
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
11:51 AM on 05/22/2012
...and nuclear weapons will be no defence against insurgency... better by far to have well-equipped, well funded conventional armed forces to face that threat..
03:46 PM on 05/22/2012
you do realize your theory is only logical in a hypothetical future where IRAN has a FIRST STRIKE capability against Britain (taking into account Israel and the US) in the situation where Britain keeps its old not-as-fun submarines.

Yeah. it sure sounds stupid when you actually state the premises of the argument
05:14 PM on 05/21/2012
Please Coalition, tell us where the money is coming from and where you got it from! And with all the cuts in our armed forces, and the over spend on the two aircraft carriers which do not as yet have any planes to fly from them , as you have sold off the Harriers! I think you are having a laugh. Thank goodness you lot were not in control in 1939!!!
04:33 PM on 05/21/2012
Total waste of money. Thoght this country was skint. .Be better spent on border forces. Bringg the forces home.
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
11:38 AM on 07/11/2012
@ JHUGHES108
May I suggest 'THOUGHT' and 'BRING'. People who make typing errors should think twice about correcting the errors of others.
04:29 PM on 05/21/2012
Belong it creates jobs who cares. Like to see houses being built though.