Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

What exactly do we spend our taxes on?

22nd Oct 2015
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

What exactly do we spend our taxes on?

“Not welfare” has been the cry (until working people on tax credits realise this means them and nobody likes to mention that the bill includes pensions)

There is one thing though which appears to be sacred. “I’d vote for that Jeremy Corbyn,” people say, “but he wants to get rid of Trident”. Trident appears to have become unchallengeable in people’s minds, but why?

What is it for?

Trident succeeded Polaris succeeded the V-bombers. Britain’s unilateral nuclear deterrent. It survives from the age of Mutually Assured Destruction. Britain might be a smoking atomic ruin but we could still strike back like a dying scorpion.

Whether anybody would have done is something that happily we will never know, but even that hardened old cold warrior Denis Healey said in later years that he could never have pushed the nuclear button. However, the underlying theory was there.

So the assumption was that the missiles were aimed at Moscow, Leningrad, Murmansk and so on; Russian cities, because Russia was the great scary Communist enemy.

But then it turned out that the USSR was, after all, a paper tiger. History, it was proclaimed, had ended, and the West had won. But then history started up again and the enemy wasn’t the commies any more; it was terrorists in their various shapes and sizes. None of these shapes and sizes, however, was a big enough target to drop an atomic bomb on, let alone something the size of a Trident warhead.

So what is it for?

One explanation is that it is simply there to show that Britain is a nuclear power (and while it is a bad thing for anyone else to develop nuclear weapons, it is a good thing for Britain) and so deserve to be taken notice of internationally because we can wave this great big thing around. Not very grown-up, is it?

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (16)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Red Leader
By Red Leader
22nd Oct 2015 12:43

insurance?

It's like a massively expensive insurance premium.

On balance, I don't think it's worth paying. The risk that it insures against may be imaginary rather than real.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Oct 2015 12:52

And IS ...

... do have a grown up view point?

In many ways if IS had nuclear capability they would use it, and the fact we could retaliate in kind would possibly make that act more, not less, likely!

However, I cannot ever see us "nuking" the Middle East as there is too much oil there.

Thanks (0)
By John Abbott
22nd Oct 2015 13:03

"a paper tiger" I don't quite

"a paper tiger" I don't quite agree. They did fall after all, but their military power was real. As for Trident missles - UK should always have such systems at its disposal. The world as we know it today is heading towards its downfall. There are many conflicts going on and even more upcoming. A new global war is knocking on our door. Such a missile system would give any country a big advantage over its rivals. Or great defense for that matter. Don't forget that Russia's latest Topol missile systems are quite impressive, capable of reaching our borders in short time. So instead of circumcising its military, UK should start cutting social benefits to all lazy bastards who do nothing but scratch their balls all day long. This where we should make cuts from. Other than I think our taxes are well spend.

..............

Clean spaces create happy faces!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Duhamel
22nd Oct 2015 13:21

I'm not sure
its worth paying for either. If we got rid, then I do think the courntry would hold less international weight. Is that weight worth the cost? Probably not.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Lship
22nd Oct 2015 16:53

£26bn spent on building the

£26bn spent on building the new subs seems far better value for money however than the £46bn on HS2.

At least it may potentially stop attacks in the future, if we are talking of saving money I know which is higher up on my list to scrap.

Thanks (0)
Francois
By Francois Badenhorst
22nd Oct 2015 16:55

Trident is a waste

Trident is, in my opinion, a complete waste of money. From a defence perspective and needing the ability to retaliate just in case: If any country launched a nuclear attack against the UK (not that they would because people aren't loons) the US would bomb that country into the Stone Age.

Schoolboy debates aside, we need the dough. Especially in a time where the government is constantly telling us we need to make do with less. Well, then, let's scrap trident. That's a healthy little sum saved.

Nuclear weapons are a 20th century vestige. 

Thanks (0)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
22nd Oct 2015 16:55

I'm in favour of keeping nukes

Although I'm not sure that a Trident replacement is the most effective solution.  Perhaps expanding the existing astute class of submarine fleet and equipping some with nuclear tipped cruise missiles would be more appropriate in this day and age.

I acknowledge that nukes aren't great against terrorist threats, but they are an excellent defence against a large foreign nation over-running your territory.  Ukraine bitterly regrets giving up their stock of ex-Soviet ones.

Who knows what the threats will be in 30 years time.  In my view, it's better to keep some sort of insurance policy.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By matttaxnpayroll
23rd Oct 2015 12:36

I agree with Corbyn

Locutus wrote:

Although I'm not sure that a Trident replacement is the most effective solution.  Perhaps expanding the existing astute class of submarine fleet and equipping some with nuclear tipped cruise missiles would be more appropriate in this day and age.

I acknowledge that nukes aren't great against terrorist threats, but they are an excellent defence against a large foreign nation over-running your territory.  Ukraine bitterly regrets giving up their stock of ex-Soviet ones.

Who knows what the threats will be in 30 years time.  In my view, it's better to keep some sort of insurance policy.

 

The point being that Russia wouldn't have invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine (albeit perhaps by proxy) if Ukraine still had it's nuclear weapons.  Except that, Russia still insists it didn't invade - there was no army marching into Ukrainian territory, just 'volunteers'.  Would they have acted in the same way?  If they had, would Ukraine really have launched?

I do agree with your basic point, but... As I understand it, Germany hasn't had much of an army since the war, and I'll be readily corrected in my belief that they don't have nukes.  They've done pretty well without all them.

All the same, I don't see Britain as being subject to the same threat - we're not as readily invaded being an island, w have a sizeable standing army which is not in the disarray that Ukraine's was, and there's no hostile former ruler next door waiting to move in. 

Even if we were to be invaded and we still have nukes, would our leader really push the button to kill millions - mostly innocent? It's a different situation with different defensive requirement.

I say scrap it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
26th Oct 2015 11:17

Conflict escalation

matttaxnpayroll wrote:

Locutus wrote:

Although I'm not sure that a Trident replacement is the most effective solution.  Perhaps expanding the existing astute class of submarine fleet and equipping some with nuclear tipped cruise missiles would be more appropriate in this day and age.

I acknowledge that nukes aren't great against terrorist threats, but they are an excellent defence against a large foreign nation over-running your territory.  Ukraine bitterly regrets giving up their stock of ex-Soviet ones.

Who knows what the threats will be in 30 years time.  In my view, it's better to keep some sort of insurance policy.

 

The point being that Russia wouldn't have invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine (albeit perhaps by proxy) if Ukraine still had it's nuclear weapons.  Except that, Russia still insists it didn't invade - there was no army marching into Ukrainian territory, just 'volunteers'.  Would they have acted in the same way?  If they had, would Ukraine really have launched?

I do agree with your basic point, but... As I understand it, Germany hasn't had much of an army since the war, and I'll be readily corrected in my belief that they don't have nukes.  They've done pretty well without all them.

All the same, I don't see Britain as being subject to the same threat - we're not as readily invaded being an island, w have a sizeable standing army which is not in the disarray that Ukraine's was, and there's no hostile former ruler next door waiting to move in. 

Even if we were to be invaded and we still have nukes, would our leader really push the button to kill millions - mostly innocent? It's a different situation with different defensive requirement.

I say scrap it.

The point about nuclear weapons is that, against a rational opponent (the ex-USSR, Russia, China, etc.), they limit escalation of a conflict, since the consequences of going nuclear are so horrific.

In the case of Ukraine, although Russia was (an still is) fighting a proxy war in the East of the country, it had thousands of regular soldiers and equipment massing on the border, ready for an overt invasion if things got out of hand (perhaps say if the West were to supply modern weapons to the Ukrainian Army). If Ukraine had had nuclear weapons then Russia would have been much, much more wary of mounting such a full scale invasion.

Back to the UK, if the UK were to give up its nuclear weapons then in isolation it wouldn't change the world too much. The UK would still be under the protective nuclear shield of NATO (although I note Corbyn is also in fabour of leaving NATO). However, were the US and France to unilaterally also give up nuclear weapons then the world would be a much, much, scarier place.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
22nd Oct 2015 17:08

Am all in favour of the UK scrapping its nuclear capability but only if all other countries do so first.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JDBENJAMIN
23rd Oct 2015 12:30

There are various reasons why people oppose Trident...

...but they can be summed up as follows;

1) They are pacifists who refuse to deal with the world as it really is.

2) They are old communists, and their opposition to Trident is a hangover from their wish in the Cold War days for the USSR to triumph and destroy the free world.

3) They are surrounded by guardianistas and want to 'fit in'. Peer pressure is a huge force in shaping belief.

4) Nuclear weapons are for killing people, and killing people is bad and nasty isn't it? (Many people really are that childish in their thought processes.)

5) They are leftists and in some vague way the Trident programme is connected with Tories/Thatcher/privatisation/capitalism/Murdoch/bankers/Daily Mail/the establishment/big business or something.

Anyway, this article is utterly irrelevant to this website, which is about ACCOUNTANCY and NOTHING ELSE. And don't try and claim that because nuclear weapons are paid for out of taxation, that somehow makes it an accountancy issue, as that is obviously specious. If you want to write leftist political drivel, there are plenty of websites catering for it. Komment Macht Frei in the Grauniad comes to mind.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SKCOX:
John Hextall
By John Hextall
23rd Oct 2015 13:06

Is this

satire?

Thanks (0)
Replying to SKCOX:
By k743snx
23rd Oct 2015 13:23

Relevance

 

this article is utterly irrelevant to this website, which is about ACCOUNTANCY and NOTHING ELSE.

This brings to mind the recent somewhat "robust" debate on another AW blog which explored the true meaning of "poverty", so-called. A lot of the comments could have been straight out of Socialist Worker, but along the way one had the feeling that the real thrust of AW had been by-passed......

SS has his political views, to which he's entitled - what annoys me is his tendency to indulge in "cheap shots" - an especially nasty recent example was when he had a pop at parents sending their children to fee-paying schools - and generally to go off at tangents as the mood takes him....

Thanks (0)
Replying to SKCOX:
avatar
By Duhamel
23rd Oct 2015 14:08

Missed one

JDBENJAMIN wrote:

...but they can be summed up as follows;

1) They are pacifists who refuse to deal with the world as it really is.

2) They are old communists, and their opposition to Trident is a hangover from their wish in the Cold War days for the USSR to triumph and destroy the free world.

3) They are surrounded by guardianistas and want to 'fit in'. Peer pressure is a huge force in shaping belief.

4) Nuclear weapons are for killing people, and killing people is bad and nasty isn't it? (Many people really are that childish in their thought processes.)

5) They are leftists and in some vague way the Trident programme is connected with Tories/Thatcher/privatisation/capitalism/Murdoch/bankers/Daily Mail/the establishment/big business or something.

Anyway, this article is utterly irrelevant to this website, which is about ACCOUNTANCY and NOTHING ELSE. And don't try and claim that because nuclear weapons are paid for out of taxation, that somehow makes it an accountancy issue, as that is obviously specious. If you want to write leftist political drivel, there are plenty of websites catering for it. Komment Macht Frei in the Grauniad comes to mind.

I am none of those things. I disagree with renewing trident because I don't think it's worth the money, nothing more or less.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JDBENJAMIN
23rd Oct 2015 12:48

It is of no use, so should be scrapped....

It is a relic of decades ago, was never relevant, and is a complete waste. Simon Sweetman's blog, that is.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Simon Sweetman
26th Oct 2015 10:34

JDBenjamin - two posts without a single attempt at rational argument, mere abuse. Well done !

Thanks (0)