The regular leaps in the cost are eye-watering enough in themselves, even before thinking about the sums thus arrived at. But the difference is that there are other ways of doing Brexit. We either have Trident, or we don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nonsense. There are other ways of doing nuclear weapons. An airborne, or land-based missile system would be far cheaper than a 24-hour submarine-based one.
ReplyDeleteAnd the costs of Trident, while eye-watering, are spread out over 40 years, and are a drop in the ocean compared to, say, the annual amount we spend on the NHS.
Nuclear deterrence doesn't come cheap, but it's worth it.
It's Trident or nothing. Your side's choice of terms, so you can't complain.
DeleteAs explained, there are far cheaper alternatives. I can’t help the fact the opposition to Trident was dominated and ultimately discredited by CND loons.
ReplyDeleteWhat a thing it must be to have been asleep for 25 years. Well, for the last two, anyway.
DeleteIf this could be done any more cheaply, then your lot would be doing precisely that. It can't be.