“Trident is a system from a bygone age. It is big, expensive, cumbersome and unfit for purpose.”

742

“The MoD admitted that in June 2016, just weeks before the vote on its renewal, the Trident Missile system malfunctioned off the coast of Florida, and nearly bombed the USA.

Members of Parliament, like us ignorant of this horrendous malfunction, backed the renewal of Trident by 472 votes to 117, approving the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.

Trident is a system from a bygone age.

It is big, expensive, cumbersome and unfit for purpose.

Should the UK invest in a nuclear weapon, surely it should buy one that suits the purposes and requirements of the people of Britain, not one that suits the purposes and requirements of the private Defence Industry.

If the UK were to invest in a newer, updated, refined nuclear deterrent we would free up cash to spend in other areas, live up to our duties under the nonproliferation act, and fit us out with a nuclear deterrent for the present and the future all in one swoop.

Instead we are spending a fortune constantly updating an antiquated, world ending nuclear arsenal from the past.

This massive outlay of spending comes at a time when we are expected to let our national inheritance – the NHS & Welfare State – be stripped down, stolen and sold off.

But how much will replacing Trident cost?

Replacing the current class of nuclear submarines is expected to cost £31 billion. Another £10 billion has been put aside to cover any extra costs or spending over the estimate.

So far in the development of the Trident replacement the government has allocated or spent around £4.8 billion of its budget.

That’s just for new submarines. There are several other costs linked to Trident.

Extending the life of the current #Trident missiles into the early 2060s could cost as much as £250 billion.”