UK Trident defence system could be rendered obsolete by hackers

[spacein_vader]

Wouldn't we all. However, while there are threats to our national security, money has to be spent on defence, which is one of the primary duties of Government, and that spending benefits everyone, including the less fortunate, who pay proportionately less through taxation.

And the defence sector issignificant employer in this country.

I don't mind spending money on defense, I just don't see Trident (or a replacement,) as good use of that limited budget. The purpose it was built for is long gone, and all the nations of the world save 9 seem to have managed without.

On a separate note, just because a sector is a major employer, doesn't make it a worthy thing in and of itself.

[peterb]

I would respectfully disagree that the less fortunate pay proportionately less, while it's true they have a lower tax burden the tax they do pay makes up a much larger proportion of their income.

Someone earning up to £10'000 pays no tax at all. Someone earning £20,000 pays 20% on the additional £10,000 or £2,000 (so £2,000 on £20,000). Someone earning £30,000 pays £4,000 in tax. So those on low pay pay both proportionately less and actually less tax than the better off. I don't think anyone earning £30,000 or more could be described as disadvantaged, as that is above the average income.

I haven't included NI payments, but they are also progressive, so the very low paid are exempt.

[Corky34]

Someone earning up to £10'000 does not pay no tax, there's VAT, Council tax, and other indirect taxes. The belief that the less fortunate pay proportionately less tax is a myth, granted it's a widely believed myth, but sadly the less well off give over a larger proportion in percentage terms of their income to the government.

A more recent study compiled from ONS figures says "The poorest households paid an average of 45 per cent of their gross income in taxes in 2013-14, the highest percentage of any income group, representing a slight decrease from 47 per cent in 2012-13"

[kingpotnoodle]

I'll bet health dwarfs it - NHS budget is ~£100bn pa, while MOD gets ~£40bn. Private defence industry for export is all but non-existent, so the total won't be much more than the MOD chain and the NHS supports a fair few smaller companies as well

I just got my tax statement for the last tax year, on the back it says how much of the tax I paid went to different areas of government spending, welfare was top, then health I think, defence was some way down the list and shamefully a similar value to government debt interest payments, EU membership was bottom of the list and less than foreign aid.

The whole point of Trident and any nuclear deterrent is that you hope never to FIRE it, but you are USING it 24x7 as a deterrent. Without Trident it is likely that defence spending would be the same anyway to compensate with a more powerful conventional force but that still leaves you ultimately at the mercy of a nuclear armed enemy. Whilst our current major security threat is terrorists and guerillas who knows what might happen in 20 years, Russia might be back in cold war stance or another country might acquire nuclear weapons - Argentina for example. The US or NATO didn't help us at all last time Argentina got a bit fighty and it was French built Exocet missiles that did so much damage to our ships - we need an independent deterrent because we can't rely on our supposed "allies" to help and/or not inadvertently arm our enemies.

Luckily we could handle Argentina without resorting to nuking them but that doesn't mean we'll always be able to do that for every enemy and it's too late to build a Trident submarine once you realise you need it, you just have to retain them and in so doing pretty much ensure no country will launch a serious attack because even if they start winning over our conventional forces we can just flatten major cities in their home nation until they stop. Nuclear weapons ended WW2 earlier and with a lower total loss of life than a conventional invasion of Japan would likely have caused, they are awful weapons but humanity can be just as destructive over time without them. It is likely that nuclear weapons prevented the cold war developing into WW3 because nobody dared to start it; Trident is expensive but it is a lot cheaper than a large scale shooting war with a powerful enemy.

[kernoriordan]

I'll bet health dwarfs it - NHS budget is ~£100bn pa, while MOD gets ~£40bn. Private defence industry for export is all but non-existent, so the total won't be much more than the MOD chain and the NHS supports a fair few smaller companies as well

I just got my tax statement for the last tax year, on the back it says how much of the tax I paid went to different areas of government spending, welfare was top, then health I think, defence was some way down the list and shamefully a similar value to government debt interest payments, EU membership was bottom of the list and less than foreign aid.

The whole point of Trident and any nuclear deterrent is that you hope never to FIRE it, but you are USING it 24x7 as a deterrent. Without Trident it is likely that defence spending would be the same anyway to compensate with a more powerful conventional force but that still leaves you ultimately at the mercy of a nuclear armed enemy. Whilst our current major security threat is terrorists and guerillas who knows what might happen in 20 years, Russia might be back in cold war stance or another country might acquire nuclear weapons - Argentina for example. The US or NATO didn't help us at all last time Argentina got a bit fighty and it was French built Exocet missiles that did so much damage to our ships - we need an independent deterrent because we can't rely on our supposed "allies" to help and/or not inadvertently arm our enemies.

Luckily we could handle Argentina without resorting to nuking them but that doesn't mean we'll always be able to do that for every enemy and it's too late to build a Trident submarine once you realise you need it, you just have to retain them and in so doing pretty much ensure no country will launch a serious attack because even if they start winning over our conventional forces we can just flatten major cities in their home nation until they stop. Nuclear weapons ended WW2 earlier and with a lower total loss of life than a conventional invasion of Japan would likely have caused, they are awful weapons but humanity can be just as destructive over time without them. It is likely that nuclear weapons prevented the cold war developing into WW3 because nobody dared to start it; Trident is expensive but it is a lot cheaper than a large scale shooting war with a powerful enemy.

Finally somebody that is talking sense! +1

[anselhelm]

Alas we're stuck with Trident, given the ridiculous viewpoints of most MPs across all the major parties.

About the only chance we realistically have is a Labour / SNP coalition where Corbyn has been able to finally silence all the Blairite prats who want to oust him just because he's not the leader they want (even though the vast majority of Labour supporters DO want him!)

[rootminus1]

This got off-topic quickly.
Even if non-standard soft/hardware is used, there is still liability. How long did it take for Stuxnet to be cracked? It still managed to do it's job.

[Noli]

I just got my tax statement for the last tax year, on the back it says how much of the tax I paid went to different areas of government spending, welfare was top, then health I think, defence was some way down the list and shamefully a similar value to government debt interest payments, EU membership was bottom of the list and less than foreign aid.

The whole point of Trident and any nuclear deterrent is that you hope never to FIRE it, but you are USING it 24x7 as a deterrent. Without Trident it is likely that defence spending would be the same anyway to compensate with a more powerful conventional force but that still leaves you ultimately at the mercy of a nuclear armed enemy. Whilst our current major security threat is terrorists and guerillas who knows what might happen in 20 years, Russia might be back in cold war stance or another country might acquire nuclear weapons - Argentina for example. The US or NATO didn't help us at all last time Argentina got a bit fighty and it was French built Exocet missiles that did so much damage to our ships - we need an independent deterrent because we can't rely on our supposed "allies" to help and/or not inadvertently arm our enemies.

Luckily we could handle Argentina without resorting to nuking them but that doesn't mean we'll always be able to do that for every enemy and it's too late to build a Trident submarine once you realise you need it, you just have to retain them and in so doing pretty much ensure no country will launch a serious attack because even if they start winning over our conventional forces we can just flatten major cities in their home nation until they stop. Nuclear weapons ended WW2 earlier and with a lower total loss of life than a conventional invasion of Japan would likely have caused, they are awful weapons but humanity can be just as destructive over time without them. It is likely that nuclear weapons prevented the cold war developing into WW3 because nobody dared to start it; Trident is expensive but it is a lot cheaper than a large scale shooting war with a powerful enemy.

This