- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 20,311
- Likes
- 8,403
I wonder how much will UK save if it scraps its armed forces altogether ? 
==
Scrapping the Trident nuclear missile system would save £83.5bn and many of the jobs at risk could be transferred to alternative defence projects, according to an authoritative study published on Wednesday.
An average annual saving of £1.86bn would be made until 2062, it says. The study, commissioned by senior figures from all three main parties, points out that the savings would not be available immediately because cancellation and decommissioning costs would have to be taken into account.
The report, by Professor Keith Hartley, a leading defence economist, is published by a commission set up by the British American Security Information Council. The Trident commission is jointly chaired by the former Conservative and Labour defence secretaries Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Browne and the former Liberal Democrat leader and foreign and defence spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell.
The option of arming a new fleet of Astute submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles – which is being considered by an internal Ministry of Defence study – might cost £56.5bn up to 2058, the report says.
Under the worst case scenario, scrapping Trident could lead to the loss of 31,000 jobs, it says. Jobs linked to the Trident nuclear missile project are concentrated at the BAE Systems shipyards at Barrow-in-Furness, Rolls Royce in Derby, the naval shipyard at Devonport near Plymouth, and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire.
Job losses would happen over a long adjustment period during which Britain would be producing nuclear-powered but conventionally armed Astute class submarines.
"Care is needed to identify myths, emotions and special pleading," the report says. "For example, industry will often claim that a decision not to replace the [Trident submarine] Vanguard fleet would have a 'devastating and catastrophic impact' on the United Kingdom's submarine industrial base and its continued capability to design and build nuclear-powered submarines "¦ Such claims, emotive language and special pleading need to be subject to critical analysis and evaluation of the supporting empirical evidence."
It adds: "The employment and skills impacts of a Trident replacement are not the main policy objectives of defence equipment procurement: such procurements are about the contributions of various equipment programmes to UK security, protection and peace."
The study emphasises that a decision on replacing the Trident system, due to be taken in 2016, should not be dominated by the impact on jobs or industry. "They are not central to a decision [on Trident replacement]" Hartley told the Guardian.
The report says: "Some of the high unemployment areas at risk have submarine work which will continue to about 2025. This means that there is a substantial adjustment period allowing government to decide on the future of the UK submarine industry and to introduce appropriate public policies to allow a smooth adjustment to cancellation."
Submarine manufacture was particularly capital-intensive, so more alternative jobs could be created with the same investment, it said.
The MoD study on alternatives to Trident is part of the coalition government's agreement, but it is unclear how much of it will be made public.
Scrapping Trident nuclear missiles 'would save £83.5bn' | UK news | The Guardian
==
Scrapping the Trident nuclear missile system would save £83.5bn and many of the jobs at risk could be transferred to alternative defence projects, according to an authoritative study published on Wednesday.
An average annual saving of £1.86bn would be made until 2062, it says. The study, commissioned by senior figures from all three main parties, points out that the savings would not be available immediately because cancellation and decommissioning costs would have to be taken into account.
The report, by Professor Keith Hartley, a leading defence economist, is published by a commission set up by the British American Security Information Council. The Trident commission is jointly chaired by the former Conservative and Labour defence secretaries Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Browne and the former Liberal Democrat leader and foreign and defence spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell.
The option of arming a new fleet of Astute submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles – which is being considered by an internal Ministry of Defence study – might cost £56.5bn up to 2058, the report says.
Under the worst case scenario, scrapping Trident could lead to the loss of 31,000 jobs, it says. Jobs linked to the Trident nuclear missile project are concentrated at the BAE Systems shipyards at Barrow-in-Furness, Rolls Royce in Derby, the naval shipyard at Devonport near Plymouth, and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire.
Job losses would happen over a long adjustment period during which Britain would be producing nuclear-powered but conventionally armed Astute class submarines.
"Care is needed to identify myths, emotions and special pleading," the report says. "For example, industry will often claim that a decision not to replace the [Trident submarine] Vanguard fleet would have a 'devastating and catastrophic impact' on the United Kingdom's submarine industrial base and its continued capability to design and build nuclear-powered submarines "¦ Such claims, emotive language and special pleading need to be subject to critical analysis and evaluation of the supporting empirical evidence."
It adds: "The employment and skills impacts of a Trident replacement are not the main policy objectives of defence equipment procurement: such procurements are about the contributions of various equipment programmes to UK security, protection and peace."
The study emphasises that a decision on replacing the Trident system, due to be taken in 2016, should not be dominated by the impact on jobs or industry. "They are not central to a decision [on Trident replacement]" Hartley told the Guardian.
The report says: "Some of the high unemployment areas at risk have submarine work which will continue to about 2025. This means that there is a substantial adjustment period allowing government to decide on the future of the UK submarine industry and to introduce appropriate public policies to allow a smooth adjustment to cancellation."
Submarine manufacture was particularly capital-intensive, so more alternative jobs could be created with the same investment, it said.
The MoD study on alternatives to Trident is part of the coalition government's agreement, but it is unclear how much of it will be made public.
Scrapping Trident nuclear missiles 'would save £83.5bn' | UK news | The Guardian
