• The post you are reporting:
   
  Not exactly £80bn is it?
  
  Those so called savings are exaggerated as you have not factored in the costs of an alternative deterrant.
  
  Like I say, Marek, I have no fixed view on what that deterrant should be and therefore cannot compare costs.
  
  My ideal solution, I am told, is not allowable under treaty obligations. That would be to build three additional Astute Class Hunter Killer Subs instead of ballistic missile subs and to use nuclear tipped cruise missiles as the deterrant. This would be a more flexible solution. The missles could be carried by any of the UK hunter killer fleet, not just the three new ones, the navy get three additional advanced subs that would have practical uses and we would have a credable deterrant capable of hitting most targets.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason