Bankrupt British Beggars may no longer afford nuke, PRC will not help this one

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-estimates-calculations-suggest-a6708126.html

The cost of replacing Trident is really £167bn, new figures suggest
The new estimate is double previous calculations

Jon Stone
@joncstone
Sunday 25 October 2015 15:22 BST

A Trident Vanguard-class submarine PA

The overall cost of replacing Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system would be £167bn, double previous credible estimates, according to new calculations based on official figures.

The Reuters news agency reports that a replacement would cost nearly double the proportion the defence budget as its predecessor.

The revelation comes shortly after the anti-Trident SNP swept nearly every Scottish seat at the Scottish general election and Labour elected anti-Trident leader Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition.
Read more
Jeremy Corbyn loses the battle on Trident

The figures, released by the Ministry of Defence following parliamentary questions by Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, show ministers believe the cost of four new submarines would be £25bn.

But the Government also says maintenance of the system over its lifetime would cost six per cent of the annual defence budget – which ministers have pledged to hold at two per cent of GDP.

According to IMF GDP growth forecasts for the UK, the total figure would therefore be £167bn, Reuters says.

“The successor Trident program is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defence budget of its predecessor,” Mr Blunt told the news agency.

“The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible.”

Previous estimates of the cost of the system have been significantly lower.
Read more

Jeremy Corbyn says Trident 'weapon of mass destruction' must go
Lucy Powell admits battles lie ahead as Labour debates Trident
Labour set for showdown after agreeing to debate scrapping Trident
Hilary Benn doesn't believe Labour will scrap Trident or leave Nato

The Royal United Services Institute estimated in 2013 that a new system would cost between £70bn and £80bn for its lifetime.

Ministers have previously suggested the cost could be as low as £20bn, but this calculation is widely believed to exclude various other factors.

The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn.

The new figures relate to the lifetime cost of the system between 2028 and 2060.

A decision on whether to replace the system is due next year. Labour has suggested that its MPs could be given a free vote in Parliament, meaning many of its MPs will back it.

Parliamentary arithmetic means the vote is likely to pass, barring a surprise last-minute rebellion by Conservative MPs and a three-line whipped vote by Labour.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said: "At around six per cent of the annual defense budget, the in-service costs of the UK's national deterrent are affordable and represent an investment in a capability which plays an important role in ensuring the UK's national security."

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ety-concerns-about-cuts-at-trident-naval-base

Faslane staff raise 'grave' concerns about budget cuts on nuclear sub safety

SNP presses defence secretary Michael Fallon on whether allowing submarines to spend longer without power while docking could pose safety risk
The Trident-class nuclear submarine Vanguard
The Royal Navy’s 16,000-tonne Trident-class nuclear submarine Vanguard at the Faslane naval base. Photograph: Press Association

Ewen MacAskill Defence correspondent

Friday 23 October 2015 13.04 BST
Last modified on Friday 23 October 2015 18.20 BST

Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

Staff at the Faslane nuclear submarine base on the Clyde have expressed “grave and genuine” fears about the impact of proposed cuts on safety at the site.

The concerns surround proposals to change the docking arrangements for submarines returning from missions. Currently, electricity to each sub is cut off about 20 minutes before docking, until it is connected to a shore power supply.

As part of cost-cutting measures believed to total £77.5m over the next five years, the engineering company Babcock, which is contracted by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to run the Faslane site, propose to extend this period without electricity for up to a maximum of three hours.

Trident divisions overshadow final day at Labour conference

Brendan O’Hara, the Scottish National party (SNP) defence spokesman, whose Argyll and Bute constituency includes Faslane, said one of the worries was whether the nuclear reactors would begin to heat up if there was no electric-powered pump for the cooling system.

“I have been approached by several constituents who have worked at the base for many years and they have raised grave and genuine concerns about the proposed extension to how long a nuclear-powered submarine can lie alongside without power,” he said.

“This is all about safety. Safety, when we are dealing with nuclear-fuelled submarines is paramount and anything that appears to compromise that must be questioned and then explained fully.”

The proposed extension of docking time would save an estimated £4.5m a year in shift and staffing reductions. Babcock, which was last year awarded a £2.6bn contract by the MoD to manage Faslane and the Devonport naval base at Plymouth, is believed to be looking for an estimated £77.5m in savings over the next five years.

The MoD said that no decision on the berthing time issue had been taken, but that processes and procedures were regularly reviewed with industry partners, with safety remaining “the number one priority”.


A spokesperson for Babcock said: “Options analysis has allowed us to consider a more efficient and cost effective shift pattern within this area. This has absolutely no impact on the safety of our operations”.

The Commons is scheduled to vote next year on whether to push ahead with renewal of the ageing Trident nuclear programme, including the construction of four new submarines. While the Conservative government is committed to its renewal, the SNP is opposed and Labour ducked a debate on its policy at its annual conference in September.

Babcock’s website says it is “critically responsible for the supply of power and other utility services, management of radioactive waste streams and 24-hour berthing services” at the Faslane base.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...t-defeat-means-britain-will-break-internation


Corbyn's Trident defeat means Britain will break international law
Tweet
The debate over Trident's successor is dead. The debate over Trident's successor is dead.
The debate over Trident's successor is dead.
Ian Dunt By Ian Dunt
Monday, 28 September 2015 9:38 AM
Follow iandunt

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour conference defeat on Trident effectively ends the attempts to prevent a like-for-like replacement to the nuclear weapon system. Just 0.16% of the trade union vote and 7.1% of the constituency Labour party vote backed a debate. For the trade unions, it's a jobs issue, not a moral or military one. For most constituency parties, it's an irrelevance - a throwback to the 1970s

Without a debate, Labour remains officially committed to supporting a replacement. Pro-Trident frontbenchers, like deputy leader Tom Watson or shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn, can now vote with the vast majority of Tory MPs for renewal. With the Lib Dems reduced to just eight MPs, anti-Trident Labour MPs don't have a chance of killing it off at the main 'gateway' decision stage, even when you add parliament's 56 new SNP MPs to the equation.

The debate over Trident's successor is dead. Britain will almost certainly have a continuous at-sea nuclear weapon until the 2040s, at the cost of about £25 billion and £1.5 billion a year running costs.

We're told this is the moderate, grown-up, common sense view. If so, the world has been turned on its head. The like-for-like replacement is probably illegal, financially insane, militarily nonsensical and morally intolerable.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

PRC can help Brits to build nuclear power plant but not this ultra costly strategic ICBM.

The fact is the supplier - the other bigger bankrupt nigger Obama is trying to rip off a huge lucrative profit from this fellow beggar, because Obama's dying country is very HUNGRY already. UK has no alternative supplier. Not Putin, nor Xijinping will supply anything. No body else have it for sale.

 

[frenchbriefs]

so expensive?even a aircraft carrier is ten times cheaper than that.wtf i bet they can buy nuclear submarines from russia cheap 1 billion a piece.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

Fucking white beggars may be forced to glorify their own bankruptcy, by calling it "Peace Effort, Nuke Disarmament, Green, Humanity, Horse Shit.."




Their glorification will not be complete without sticking yet another Holly Noble Peace Award with the Bible up their own ass-hole!


http://www.siliconafrica.com/the-da...africa-destroyed-its-nuclear-weapons-in-1990/



The Dark Truth About Why South Africa Destroyed Its Nuclear Weapons in 1990

By: Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN
Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 9:47 pm.
Why would any country voluntarily dismantle its nuclear weapons which take years and billions to develop?

South Africa is the only country which ever give up its nuclear dissuasion power.

But Why? Did they dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons because they believed in a vision of an Africa free of nuclear weapons, as the press reported?

NO.

The white apartheid regime didn’t want a Black Nation to possess nuclear weapon, a dissuasive power in our contemporary world.

Foreseeing a democratic South Africa where Black people will be in power, the white regime destroyed all the country’s main military facilities, ballistics missiles and dismantling all six complete nuclear weapons shortly after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990.

South Africa hastily joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and seven weeks later the country signed a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to Greg Mills “South African authorities co-operated fully with the IAEA during the whole verification process, and were commended by the then director-general of the Agency in 1992, Dr. Hans Blix, for providing inspectors with unlimited access and data beyond those required by the Safeguards Agreement“

In less than 3 years all South Africa’s ballistic missiles were scrapped, its six nuclear weapons dismantled, and any remaining missile engines destroyed.

To prevent any future attempt by any upcoming South African administration to empower the country, the apartheid regime enacted the most self-restricting legislation in the form of the “Act on the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” that makes provision for a South African Council for Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction to control exports of dual-use materials, equipment and technology.

While South African apartheid leaders’ actions were met with praise by the western medias and leaders, many saw this speedy destruction of* all the country main military infrastructures as a sign that the racist apartheid regime and many western countries didn’t want* the upcoming Black leaders to inherit such a powerful arsenal.

“The whole thing was dressed up as an honourable retreat from a nuclear Africa” said Frans Cronje, deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a Johannesburg-based think tank.

“A nuclear African state would be taken more seriously and would have a stronger leadership role – it forces people to take you seriously.

In leadership terms, renouncing nuclear weapons does the opposite – it reduces your influence in foreign affairs and international politics.

If renouncing nuclear weapons grows your influence, others would be falling over themselves to surrender their nuclear arsenals.” continued Frans Cronje

While a racist, violent, and brutal oppression white apartheid regime was trusted to have and manage nuclear weapons, a Black and democratically elected regime was not trusted to* manage them.

That historic decision was all about racism. Nothing else.

South Africa would today be stronger on the international stage if it had retained a nuclear arsenal.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

so expensive?even a aircraft carrier is ten times cheaper than that.wtf i bet they can buy nuclear submarines from russia cheap 1 billion a piece.

You think Putin will make any deal? British beggars are never friended nor trusted by Moscow, period.

Brits are in trouble because their most important ally and protector USA are now ROBBING $$$$ from them.