I've just been to get my car out of the carpark and was listening to the 5 Live News. How about this for warped news priorities...
FIRST ITEM
Blue Peter presenters apologise for phone cock up
SECOND ITEM
MPs vote on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent
Bizarre.
19 comments:
Well you have to ask yourself what's going to be more useful, a blue peter badge or a nuclear deterrent?
PM on Radio 4 got it the right way around.
Can anyone explain to me a situation in which we actually would use Trident?
To me, it's a bit like buying 20 Ferrari's and garaging them for 50 years whilst paying 10,000 security guards to watch over them for all those years (The Royal Navy).
Yes, yes, I know it's a deterrent but can we as just a small country afford to pay for it?
We could probably have a better healthcare system than the french if we ditched it. And ultimately, the Yanks would help us out if the shit hit the fan....
£30bn worth of Nuclear power stations will protect us from future threats not £30bn of cold war delivery system.
Generals prepare for the last war they fought. (look at the Maginot line).
Dave Cameron blew this opportunity.
He pretends to have vision but he just follows received wisdom. Useless.
"Yes, yes, I know it's a deterrent but can we as just a small country afford to pay for it?"
We can apparently afford to pay half the £21bn quoted for a month-long sporting festival five years hence, and half or more of the amount quoted for ID cards that won't do anything for anyone. Those exercises in pointlessness make 30 years of deterrence look like a bargain.
pj,
If you waste 100 quid of your household budget on something frivalous, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to waste another 100 quid on something else.
TBF
or is that the trident vote doesnt sit well with the CND beardies at the BBC?
It's a true reflection of the BBC priorities, is it not?
Their first and foremost concern must be their employer, surely?
This is a particularly bizarre example of something I've noticed before, namely that journalists often attach too much importance to media stories. As my dear wife would say, "They're a bit up their own bottoms."
Is that a dustbin in the bottom left hand corner?
Why is anyone surprised at a self centred media organisation taking itself far too seriously.
They only told us because someone told another media outlet about it.
The really amazing piece of journalism was on the Ten O'Clock news last night, immediately following a REALLY average piece of sanctimonious spin from some BBC suit, they interviewed a 7(?) year old asian boy whose reaction was - well if there is a problem just tell us. We can deal with it. Out of the mouths of babes....
I know which one i would have employed and it wasnt the suit!
I think that this order of priority is about right. After all, what exactly happened yesterday in Parliament that was of any interest? After a lengthy and somewhat tedious debate, during which not one single person will have changed their mind in consideration of the arguments, an entirely inevitable and predictable result ensued.
And now back to some breaking news from the Blue Peter studio . . .
The whole Trident kerfuffle was a good way to bury the bad news that Olympics continues to spiral out of control.
We are a nation of morons. What else is new?
So you have never bought a copy of THE SUN then??
Ripping off kids is morally repugnant. Nobody expects us to ever use Trident, so morals don't really enter into that debate anymore. Quod erat demonstrandum.
As I'm happy to be thought of as an unsophisticated yokel, can I ask those in the know a couple of questions about Trident:
[1] I see reports that we couldn't arm/launch without US authorisation anyway. Any links/refs that explain this state of affairs?
[2] Supposedly, this debate is happening now as the existing submarines are 'obsolete'. In what way? Either they are fit for purpose or not. If not, why haven't we replaced them sooner? If they are OK, but just old, why not just build new ones to the same design? Being an old design and using ancient materials and construction techniques doesn't stop something being perfectly useful - I'd buy a MGB or E-Type tomorrow, if they started making them again…
Submarines have a lifespan realted to how many times they dive/surface. after a while, cracks develop in the welds of the pressure hull.
Extending the life of the hulls is generally not practical. In addition the reactors these subs have are one-shot - they are designed to match the life of the hull, and are sealed and not refuelable. This makes them safer, cheaper and reduces the amount of radioactive waste they generate.
So, all you would need to replace is the hull and the reactor. The elctronics would probably need to be changed, and the rest of the propulsion plant will probably be past it's best.
The toilet seats might be worth keeping...... not much else.
Remember that Trident went into operation in 1994 and they are talking about an out of srvice date of 2020. That is a 25 year life for the subs. Historically that is a quite a good age of a nuclear sub.
Incidently, the legal situation is more complex than has been suggested. The lawyes opinions seem to have been based on the idea that Trident was supposed to be for destrying cities.
In fact, it was orginally purchased because it could get through the Moscow ABM defenses, and hit the USSR leadership in their bunkers - the main war bunker was actually outside the city.
A number of the Trident missiles have only one warhead on with the Full Fusing Option (FUFO) activated. This allows the yield to be changed. The lowest setting is setting off just the core with no fusion boosting - 0.3Kt. Yes, 300 tons of TNT equivelent.
This is why the tactical nukes and aircraft bombs were given up - Trident could do all the jobs. It also means that Trident could be used against military only targets. If aimed at an installation on a base 5 miles across (not especially big), there would be no casualties beyond the fence, particularly if an airburst was used.
Digging out a buried facility would cuase alot of fallout, of course. But it all depends on what it is aimed at. This blows the "Trident is illegal" argument apart.
@Sir Francis Walsingham
Thanks for the background info :-)
No problem. I know way too much for my own good....
For a good overview of what nukes are really about, have a look at the Nuclear Weapon Archive (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/). Just the facts.
Post a Comment