Trident

[Johny Walker]

And to be fair Israel kicked all their arses including a war on two fronts with Syria and Egypt.

 

only becouse they were bked by the usa !!!!!!

[penfold]

Bankers have played both sides in a war since time immemorial but it started on a big scale during the Napoleonic Wars with the Rothschild family bankrolling both sides.

Whichever side wins the banks win.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

this is why we need trident:

All aboard the Westminster gravy train

 

The main companies involved in Trident are US multinational Lockheed Martin (who produce the missiles), BAE Systems, Babcock & Wilcox and Rolls-Royce – who are involved in the Successor programme – and also names like Bechtel, Honeywell, Raytheon and Serco who are contracted or subcontracted in relation to the current Trident system.

 

According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.

 

Prominent names include Lord Hollick, a Labour Peer who is a director of Honeywell. Lord (William) Hague, chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). RUSI, who are supposedly impartial US and UK government defence advisors, are sponsored by Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls-Royce.

 

But one of the most telling individuals is Labour’s Lord Hutton, defence secretary under Gordon Brown. He is an adviser to Bechtel, consultant for Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA). The revolving door (the phrase used to describe MP’s who, once finished in parliament, go into jobs related to their previous role) has never spun so quickly.

 

It may be no wonder then, that the majority of parliament (excluding the SNP and the Green party) are supportive of renewing Trident.

 

With reference to the role of multinational financial institutions, all the companies listed above, aside from being involved in Trident, share one other common denominator. They are all financed, or owned, by UK banks. Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report by Don’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry.

 

What this report doesn’t cover, however, is these institutions involvement in Russia’s nuclear weapons industry.

Laughing all the way to the bank

 

Aside from financing state-owned Russian companies like Rostec State Corporation (heavily involved with the country’s military) via their funding of, and credit trading with, Rostec financiers Novikombank, these banks have directly financed the Trident equivalent in Russia.

 

The Dolgorukiy class submarine programme is Putin’s very own Trident. Made by a company called Sevmash, it’s financed by the state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) development bank. In turn, VEB bank is financed by a consortium of international banks. These include, of course, Barclays and HSBC.

 

Essentially, UK multinational banks are playing one big game of “Battleships”, funding both UK and Russian nuclear weapons programmes. Except no missiles will ever be fired, and a winner will never be declared – because that would be unprofitable.

 

But the most shocking aspect of this is one financial institution so far not mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

 

RBS are also financiers of the VEB bank who fund Russia’s nuclear submarines – and they also invest or part-own seven companies directly contracted to Trident. What is most deplorable about this is the fact that RBS is, of course, state-owned – we bought a 79% majority stake after the 2008 financial crash.

 

In layman’s terms? We, the public, pay for Trident directly via taxation. We also paid for RBS, directly through taxation. In turn, RBS directly fund (with UK taxpayer money) our “enemy’s” nuclear weapon systems.

 

Essentially, the UK taxpayer is paying for both sides in this perceived nuclear stand-off.

 

The whole nuclear weapons industry – every disturbed, finger-pointed warning about Russia, every argument about our “national security” – is one mammoth ruse.

 

We, the taxpayer, are duped into allowing complicit Governments to squander our money on an imaginary threat, which merely serves to make former MPs richer and multinational banks and their wealthy shareholders more money.

 

The most dangerous enemy facing us in 2016? The lies we are told, under the premise of a threat which doesn’t actually exist.

 

 

Great post, deeply insightful!

[Mull]

this is why we need trident:

All aboard the Westminster gravy train

 

The main companies involved in Trident are US multinational Lockheed Martin (who produce the missiles), BAE Systems, Babcock & Wilcox and Rolls-Royce – who are involved in the Successor programme – and also names like Bechtel, Honeywell, Raytheon and Serco who are contracted or subcontracted in relation to the current Trident system.

 

According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.

 

Prominent names include Lord Hollick, a Labour Peer who is a director of Honeywell. Lord (William) Hague, chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). RUSI, who are supposedly impartial US and UK government defence advisors, are sponsored by Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls-Royce.

 

But one of the most telling individuals is Labour’s Lord Hutton, defence secretary under Gordon Brown. He is an adviser to Bechtel, consultant for Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA). The revolving door (the phrase used to describe MP’s who, once finished in parliament, go into jobs related to their previous role) has never spun so quickly.

 

It may be no wonder then, that the majority of parliament (excluding the SNP and the Green party) are supportive of renewing Trident.

 

With reference to the role of multinational financial institutions, all the companies listed above, aside from being involved in Trident, share one other common denominator. They are all financed, or owned, by UK banks. Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report by Don’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry.

 

What this report doesn’t cover, however, is these institutions involvement in Russia’s nuclear weapons industry.

Laughing all the way to the bank

 

Aside from financing state-owned Russian companies like Rostec State Corporation (heavily involved with the country’s military) via their funding of, and credit trading with, Rostec financiers Novikombank, these banks have directly financed the Trident equivalent in Russia.

 

The Dolgorukiy class submarine programme is Putin’s very own Trident. Made by a company called Sevmash, it’s financed by the state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) development bank. In turn, VEB bank is financed by a consortium of international banks. These include, of course, Barclays and HSBC.

 

Essentially, UK multinational banks are playing one big game of “Battleships”, funding both UK and Russian nuclear weapons programmes. Except no missiles will ever be fired, and a winner will never be declared – because that would be unprofitable.

 

But the most shocking aspect of this is one financial institution so far not mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

 

RBS are also financiers of the VEB bank who fund Russia’s nuclear submarines – and they also invest or part-own seven companies directly contracted to Trident. What is most deplorable about this is the fact that RBS is, of course, state-owned – we bought a 79% majority stake after the 2008 financial crash.

 

In layman’s terms? We, the public, pay for Trident directly via taxation. We also paid for RBS, directly through taxation. In turn, RBS directly fund (with UK taxpayer money) our “enemy’s” nuclear weapon systems.

 

Essentially, the UK taxpayer is paying for both sides in this perceived nuclear stand-off.

 

The whole nuclear weapons industry – every disturbed, finger-pointed warning about Russia, every argument about our “national security” – is one mammoth ruse.

 

We, the taxpayer, are duped into allowing complicit Governments to squander our money on an imaginary threat, which merely serves to make former MPs richer and multinational banks and their wealthy shareholders more money.

 

The most dangerous enemy facing us in 2016? The lies we are told, under the premise of a threat which doesn’t actually exist.

 

 

 

Very interesting post indeed.

[Commando]

this is why we need trident:

All aboard the Westminster gravy train

 

The main companies involved in Trident are US multinational Lockheed Martin (who produce the missiles), BAE Systems, Babcock & Wilcox and Rolls-Royce – who are involved in the Successor programme – and also names like Bechtel, Honeywell, Raytheon and Serco who are contracted or subcontracted in relation to the current Trident system.

 

According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.

 

Prominent names include Lord Hollick, a Labour Peer who is a director of Honeywell. Lord (William) Hague, chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). RUSI, who are supposedly impartial US and UK government defence advisors, are sponsored by Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls-Royce.

 

But one of the most telling individuals is Labour’s Lord Hutton, defence secretary under Gordon Brown. He is an adviser to Bechtel, consultant for Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA). The revolving door (the phrase used to describe MP’s who, once finished in parliament, go into jobs related to their previous role) has never spun so quickly.

 

It may be no wonder then, that the majority of parliament (excluding the SNP and the Green party) are supportive of renewing Trident.

 

With reference to the role of multinational financial institutions, all the companies listed above, aside from being involved in Trident, share one other common denominator. They are all financed, or owned, by UK banks. Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report by Don’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry.

 

What this report doesn’t cover, however, is these institutions involvement in Russia’s nuclear weapons industry.

Laughing all the way to the bank

 

Aside from financing state-owned Russian companies like Rostec State Corporation (heavily involved with the country’s military) via their funding of, and credit trading with, Rostec financiers Novikombank, these banks have directly financed the Trident equivalent in Russia.

 

The Dolgorukiy class submarine programme is Putin’s very own Trident. Made by a company called Sevmash, it’s financed by the state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) development bank. In turn, VEB bank is financed by a consortium of international banks. These include, of course, Barclays and HSBC.

 

Essentially, UK multinational banks are playing one big game of “Battleships”, funding both UK and Russian nuclear weapons programmes. Except no missiles will ever be fired, and a winner will never be declared – because that would be unprofitable.

 

But the most shocking aspect of this is one financial institution so far not mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

 

RBS are also financiers of the VEB bank who fund Russia’s nuclear submarines – and they also invest or part-own seven companies directly contracted to Trident. What is most deplorable about this is the fact that RBS is, of course, state-owned – we bought a 79% majority stake after the 2008 financial crash.

 

In layman’s terms? We, the public, pay for Trident directly via taxation. We also paid for RBS, directly through taxation. In turn, RBS directly fund (with UK taxpayer money) our “enemy’s” nuclear weapon systems.

 

Essentially, the UK taxpayer is paying for both sides in this perceived nuclear stand-off.

 

The whole nuclear weapons industry – every disturbed, finger-pointed warning about Russia, every argument about our “national security” – is one mammoth ruse.

 

We, the taxpayer, are duped into allowing complicit Governments to squander our money on an imaginary threat, which merely serves to make former MPs richer and multinational banks and their wealthy shareholders more money.

 

The most dangerous enemy facing us in 2016? The lies we are told, under the premise of a threat which doesn’t actually exist.

 

 

I wonder if Ukraine would agree that it's "an imaginary threat". Unfortunately many of the countries of this world who have nuclear weapons are not led by nice people; Russia, China, N Korea, Pakistan etc. Not sure it would make sense to lose our deterrent, the world (especially M.E) is probably as unstable today than it has been since WW2.

[Haironyourchest]

The issue I have with the flow chart, Mark, is that the "Yes" path leads to the conclusion:

 

"Everybody dies - our nukes did not act as a deterrent!"

 

But this is not logiall in my opinion. We simply don't know the outcome of a nuclear exchange because one has not happened yet, and to presume "everybody dies" just doesn't hold water. All nukes are not created equal, even if they were, their effectiveness is more about the delivery system than the warhead itself. When the US dropped the nukes on Japan, it was a last ditch attempt to end a bloody trench war where Japanese civilians were being forced to take up arms. Watch the documentary - the president wanted to surrender, but his officers mutinied, kidnapped him, and basically forced the nation to keep fighting. At that time the Japanese nation were in a simmilar psychological position to the Isis fighters - i.e. total commitment to a martial ideal that would ultimately end in their complete annihilation if they kept going. The bombs were destructive, but less destructive than a drawn out ground war. It took nukes to get it through their heads that they were beaten.

 

We can never know if the two nukes were really necessary. But the idea that we can only uses nukes against an enemy that also has nukes is not logical. If a madman attacks with a knife, do you holster your gun and pull out your knife to keep it fair? In terms of total destructive power, what is the difference between one tactical nuke and 1000 tons of carpet bombs and bullets? War is war, killing is killing. Being killed by a nuke is no worse than any other violent death.

 

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back in. I think the rouge nation blackmail idea needs to be looked at carefully, there may be something to it, maybe not now, but down the road. The cost of Trident is horrendous though..... I believe Britain would be better served by scrapping it and investing in a tactical nuke program.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The issue I have with the flow chart, Mark, is that the "Yes" path leads to the conclusion:

 

 

 

"Everybody dies - our nukes did not act as a deterrent!"

 

 

 

But this is not logiall in my opinion. We simply don't know the outcome of a nuclear exchange because one has not happened yet, and to presume "everybody dies" just doesn't hold water. All nukes are not created equal, even if they were, their effectiveness is more about the delivery system than the warhead itself. When the US dropped the nukes on Japan, it was a last ditch attempt to end a bloody trench war where Japanese civilians were being forced to take up arms. Watch the documentary - the president wanted to surrender, but his officers mutinied, kidnapped him, and basically forced the nation to keep fighting. At that time the Japanese nation were in a simmilar psychological position to the Isis fighters - i.e. total commitment to a martial ideal that would ultimately end in their complete annihilation if they kept going. The bombs were destructive, but less destructive than a drawn out ground war. It took nukes to get it through their heads that they were beaten.

 

 

 

We can never know if the two nukes were really necessary. But the idea that we can only uses nukes against an enemy that also has nukes is not logical. If a madman attacks with a knife, do you holster your gun and pull out your knife to keep it fair? In terms of total destructive power, what is the difference between one tactical nuke and 1000 tons of carpet bombs and bullets? War is war, killing is killing. Being killed by a nuke is no worse than any other violent death.

 

 

 

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back in. I think the rouge nation blackmail idea needs to be looked at carefully, there may be something to it, maybe not now, but down the road. The cost of Trident is horrendous though..... I believe Britain would be better served by scrapping it and investing in a tactical nuke program.

 

 

Good post!

 

Not sure tactical is viable.

 

It's a bad situation that we have Trident (and the potential for replacement), however, I think it might be worse if we didn't.

[muttley9050]

Worse than what. Nuclear war. Don't think so.

[openspaceman]

The issue I have with the flow chart, Mark, is that the "Yes" path leads to the conclusion:

 

"Everybody dies - our nukes did not act as a deterrent!"

 

But this is not logiall in my opinion.

 

Nor mine, poor piece of programming for one it pre supposes the antagonist has nuclear weapons and this wasn't the case in our early development of the nuclear capability.

 

The other point it doesn't address is what benefit does the antagonist expect from a war

 

We simply don't know the outcome of a nuclear exchange because one has not happened yet, and to presume "everybody dies" just doesn't hold water.

 

 

No but for all intents and purposes the luxurious life we have now would not be available to the survivors and even they would be subject to turf wars last seen in the middle ages in this country and current in Iraq Syria and Afghanistan.

 

 

When the US dropped the nukes on Japan, it was a last ditch attempt to end a bloody trench war where Japanese civilians were being forced to take up arms.

 

This is not what I infer from the history: Russia had mobilised a massive ground war machine after being initially poorly prepared, their government was happy to have an ill educated, ill informed public as cannon fodder, they had not been party to any negotiations with Japan and had a score to settle with them. Russia had no inkling of the devastating power of nuclear bombs. The Japanese were finished anyway but further fighting would have cost them many casualties from starvation. The two bombs were a clear warning to Russia that the war must stop, it also saved many Japanese. An unfortunate consequence was Hirohito avoided a war crimes trial as the Americans needed a strong ally in the east. Similarly the need for America to develop a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear war head was why Werner von Braun avoided answering for his abetting of war crimes.

 

We can never know if the two nukes were really necessary. But the idea that we can only uses nukes against an enemy that also has nukes is not logical. If a madman attacks with a knife, do you holster your gun and pull out your knife to keep it fair? In terms of total destructive power, what is the difference between one tactical nuke and 1000 tons of carpet bombs and bullets? War is war, killing is killing. Being killed by a nuke is no worse than any other violent death.

 

That's my view too

 

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back in. .

 

and that