16-05-2016, 10:31 AM
21
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
HiJBR I am possibly much more positive than you about our chances outside the EU.
A few years of hell, which we could have avoided with smarter Politicians, then we will be good.
It really is all down to our Politicians what happens to us.
A little bit of common sense and we will be fine.
Will they see sense and put the UK first?
I don't honestly know.
I hope they will and put us first and not their own Political Ambitions.
I am best described as a very pragmatic technocrat.
I have no Political ambition at all, I just want what is best for my kids.
16-05-2016, 11:19 AM
22
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiJBR I am possibly much more positive than you about our chances outside the EU.
A few years of hell, which we could have avoided with smarter Politicians, then we will be good.
It really is all down to our Politicians what happens to us.
A little bit of common sense and we will be fine.
Will they see sense and put the UK first?
I don't honestly know.
I hope they will and put us first and not their own Political Ambitions.
I am best described as a very pragmatic technocrat.
I have no Political ambition at all, I just want what is best for my kids.
From one perspective, I have no kids and couldn't give a toss what happens to this country. Que sera sera! If the country votes to remain in the EU then it will get what it deserves.
To return to the 'Trident' discussion, I'm afraid that I cannot see any reason to retain it, and certainly to continue to pay billions for that privilege, if it remains in practice just another small contribution to the American nuclear deterrent.
I suspect that, powerful as they are, the Americans don't like to feel isolated in the world and, if and when they decide to go to war, they'd like to have someone else in it, albeit nominally, to support them in boosting their confidence. After all, they are still a 'young nation'.
No, I'm afraid that I have 'done a Cameron' (= done a U-turn) and, whereas I used to support an independent strategic nuclear capability for the UK, that is clearly only a pipe dream. Instead, we should save the money and put it to better use.
The problem is, what should we spend the money on?
One option that has been suggested on here is to spend it on bolstering our conventional forces. Unfortunately, I cannot see our government agreeing to that and, besides, whilst we have a long history of having excellent armed forces, I'm not sure we would ever again find ourselves in a position to use them as we would wish. Whatever we have done recently has been what has been dictated to us by the Americans. Moreover, if we remain in the EU it is almost inevitable that our armed forces would be incorporated into the much discussed 'EU Army'.
How about spending the money saved on the ailing NHS? No, probably impossible as there will cease to be an NHS. The government seem intent on selling out to private companies, so any additional investment in the meantime will only add to their profits.
Could we use the money in an attempt to restore our economy (despite our being 'the fifth largest economy in the world') and pay off our debts? I don't know. Clearly, I know nothing about economics so I have no idea what practical advantages that would bring. I suspect that we are already in hock to the rest of the world and that isn't going to change, so who knows?
As I said, I'm a cynic and a pessimist. It will be of some interest, though, to see what happens to this once proud country over the next decade or two. As for our politicians, I'm afraid that I hold out no hope whatsoever in that direction!
16-05-2016, 01:18 PM
24
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by spitfire
->
A country has material, it has expertise, it's backed (hypothetically) into a corner, given that it has material and expertise, why do solutions cost squillions?, if something is in the national interest, surely it should be FOC.
Yep, you are right, it shouldn't.
We had the experts in ballistics, missile technology, electronics, everything in fact.
It is a peculiarly British trait that we give away all this expertise for free and then go on to sell off the Companies who could have made us squillions by keeping it to ourselves and selling it to others.
I am not seeking to make a political point here, both our two Political parties have been exactly the same.
We sold it for peanuts.
When we got rid of a crucial part of our Defence Technology, it was sold for peanuts.
I bought shares in it at launch at between 9 and 12 pence a share.
They maxed out at £25.40 a share.
Insider trading?
No, just faith in my mates and their ability to deliver the goods.
All freely available information.
You can't blame Maggie for that either, it was a Blair thing.
16-05-2016, 08:25 PM
26
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiNot quite as simple as that JBR.
We rely on the USA for all sorts of things, GPS for a start.
The EU is building a much better GPS System, which we are part of, we need it and we can't afford it on our own.
We have no spy satellites of our own and we most certainly cannot afford to set up our own.
We rely on two satellite systems, the American one and the EU one.
The EU one is not part of NATO, sure the data is shared when necessary, but not to all.
Turkey is part of NATO and we certainly don't share every thing with them, for obvious reasons.
International Cooperation is vital with all these things and we must continue this in or out of the EU.
There is no reason at all to suppose that anything will change after Brexit providing we keep cooperating, but we will still be paying into the EU for both GPS and spy satellites.
I do not believe for one minute the scare stories flying around.
However if we start threatening them, they could take their ball home so to speak, and we will be the losers.
Common sense, a pragmatic approach, is the best way forward, not belligerency, that does nobody any good at all.
That doesn't mean that we have to roll over and not get the best deal possible, just that there are certain things where it is in our best interests not to rock the boat.
Satellites give out a signal than can be used by anyone capable of building receiving equipment much the same as receiving a radio signal from the BBC for example. The receiving equipment can then calculate your position on the ground by cross referencing the signal from several satellites. The only way to restrict your use of the signal would be to turn it off, in which case nobody could use it.
|
|
