Trident debate

M

Marb

Journeyman
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
7,714
Any middle ground in this discussion? Rather than have 4 brand spanking new ones, or none at all..how about having one or two?
Does this seem reasonable? Or is there any reason its four or zero?
The Labour position of going from 4 to 0 just doesn't seem sensible, imo.
 
Last edited:
My heart says scrap 'em; my head says renew them.

I can't help thinking we're at our most vulnerable ever so any would-be aggressor needs to know that we're not going to pish about if they start owt.
 
Desert Orchid said:
My heart says scrap 'em; my head says renew them.

I can't help thinking we're at our most vulnerable ever so any would-be aggressor needs to know that we're not going to pish about if they start owt.
Click to expand...

My head says "who the **** are we going to use them on?" but also "if 1950's technology is good enough for the US nuclear submarine force - quote the pentagon - 'we haven't replaced it because it works', then why is 1990's technology not good enough for us?"

It smacks of having new stuff for the sake of having new stuff to me. I'd keep the old subs.

It is reminiscent of the Navy's decision to get rid of Harriers (which are still used by the USMC), thus leaving us with 2 aircraft carriers, but no planes to fly from them, until we buy a load of F-35's from the Yanks at a cost of £100m each.

Doh!
 
Marble said:
Any middle ground in this discussion? Rather than have 4 brand spanking new ones, or none at all..how about having one or two?
Click to expand...

This was raised during the debate this evening and the answer given was that 4 new subs are required in order to ensure that enough of the fleet is seaworthy at any one time for it to fulfill its remit of 24/7 365 days a year use

Simmo above raises the point of 'why does the current fleet need to be replaced anyway?' and it's a question I too have pondered. Presumably the belief is that the 'outdated' technology renders the current fleet vulnerable to being spotted by modern surveillance techniques developed by enemies

The possibility that by the time the new subs are ready for use they will be immediately redundant due to rapidly advancing surveillance techniques has been raised several times in the debate and is very relevant in my opinion. Whether Fallon the Defence Secretary will address this in his summing up remains to be seen

Say 10 years ago I was wholly against renewal but the world has grown much more dangerous since then and now on balance I'm for continuation but far from convinced wholesale renewal is needed, particularly at the cost forecast; and cost forecasts have a habit of increasing

This change of heart lends credence to those MPs long-ardently for it who trot out words to the effect 'we live in uncertain times, who knows what the future will bring'

It's all inconsequential chat anyway: it'll be voted through, no problem

Perhaps they'll decide to scrap HS2 instead: I do hope so, as by the time that's finished and the first rattler steams out of Euston the rail technology will almost certainly be out-dated and the Northern Powerhouse will long be used to communicating with the Southern Powerhouse through the medium of video conferencing etc etc

Spend a small percentage of the brass instead sorting out Southern Region and bottlenecks on the existing network
 
Last edited:
Videoconferencing is a dead duck. Seeing less and less of it.

nothing will ever replace face to face
 
Insofar as Trident renewal is concerned, I find myself on the horns of a conundrum.

On the one hand, any sign of weakness on NATO's eastern-flank, might encourage some of Vladimir Putin's more adventurous inclinations, which would be a very bad move, imo.

On the other, it seems abundantly-clear to me, that Islamic fundamentalism is a much greater and more immediate threat.

On balance, I would probably renew, but push suppliers to reduce their costs by 1% - even if it was just for the first qualifying revenue-year, it would be a bundle - and put what is saved to good use, bolstering our underfunded Intelligence and Security services.

As far as currency of the technology is concerned, this applies across a whole host of industries, and is a particular risk when it comes to major infrastructure investment. You have to start somewhere though, and the skill is in ensuring that there is a degree of flexibility available, when it comes to supporting future-state technologies. Notwithstanding the cost element, the world is far better at predicting these types of thing, than it was when Trident was first designed and built, and I think it's reasonable to think that obselecence isn't necessarily wholly built-in.

Regardless, that obsolesence risk is not a valid reason for not renewing, imho.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Videoconferencing is a dead duck. Seeing less and less of it.

nothing will ever replace face to face
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is absolutely critical to large 21st Century corporations.

More and more enterprises are becoming aware of the huge potential cost-savings associated with Workforce enablement (aka working-from-home), and this will be an ever-increasing aspect of our lives over the next 5-10 years.

Why purchase or rent, then heat, cool, light, tax and insure a building, when you can pass that cost onto your employees? The technology to support high-def Video-conferencing is already widely available, and domestic Network connections are now more than adequate to support this type of traffic seamlessly.

Clearly, face-to-face is still preferred or needed for a number of types of meeting, but for the most-part, run-of-the-mill meetings can easily be held via VC, without any detrimental effect. It also provides an extremely low-cost way for companies with large geographical spreads, to avoid expensive (and often unneccessary) travel of staff.

VC is very-much here to stay. It's one of the easiest Cost-Benefit analyses a company will ever undertake.
 
Last edited:
It's crap.

you can't read body language properly and that's far more key than Any of us realise . Will never change.

there was. A burst of sky ping in my sector a few years back and no one bothers now. May as well just phone

no way would anyone seriously pitch for business or develop the same unless Face to face.

and you never know when someone will get their knob out
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
It's crap.

you can't read body language properly and that's far more key than Any of us realise . Will never change.

there was. A burst of sky ping in my sector a few years back and no one bothers now. May as well just phone

no way would anyone seriously pitch for business or develop the same unless Face to face.

and you never know when someone will get their knob out
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in personal preferences, because people often won't have the choice, when companies start to roll this technology out in anger.

The mob I'm currently contracted to use VC almost exclusively, and I finished a call that included people in Toronto, Denver and down-South earlier this evening, with no problems and at negigible cost to my employers.

I've already said that there will be some exceptions where a face-to-face meeting would be preferred, but you are kidding yourself on, if you think VC is dead. It is going to revolutionise the way people will work, and they won't GAF about body-language, if it means they can have an extra hour in their kip each morning, because they no longer have a commute.
 
Rule rather than exceptions. I deal with all types of businesses and it's a no no. we are constantly competing In Whatever we do and unless you are a muppet face to face will beat off Skype every time. And that's not just sales

I can give the perfect example of media buying say where there is little differential between one provider and another on price and service. One says, yes we will pitch and service your account through an apple. The other says, let's come and see you

job done

i work solo and hate office culture. Love being on the move but there is no doubt that most people want somewhere to go to work and most bosses and companies much prefer under one roof simply because it creates a sense of some unity. That will never change.

I suspwct its its been rolled out as far as it will go. Most salaried himeworkers do fck all except watch porn or countdown all day anyway
 
Last edited:
People totally underestimate body language. They have no idea how much they pick up on it. I've managed plenty of staff over many years and its key.

I see business development managers people who can't read it at all and others than are very astute. Same with managers. One wins the other loses.
 
Bugger-all, I suspect.

There isn't a major financial organisation in the country that isn't moving in this direction, and this extends to blue-chips in practically every other industry too. These organisations are too big to concern themselves with abstract bollocks like "unity" - bottom-line rules everything.

Some companies don't have the scale to make the cost-benefit argument work, of course - probably the kind of two-bit, out-of-a-lock-up chisellers, you advise about credit. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Bollocks. An sme is far more astutely cost concious than some flabby so called blue chip populated by brain dead timewasting office politicians waiting for their pension
 
An SME, by definition, has next to no use for a Video-Conferencing capability in the first place.

I think you're mistaking Skype and the like, with corporate video-conferencing. The former relies on the flakiest of all networks - the unpoliced and unmanaged Internet - whereas corporate VC is usually deployed across a private Network; which is tuned to the minute to support VC traffic.

The overall User experience is improved as a result (even when the Users ingress point is the Internet), and screens/documents can be shared freely and securely, to increase efficiency.

It also means you can cut back on paper, as you don't need to print off documents for the 20 trumpets you've been compelled to invite. Add this benefit to the intangible of less travel through increased remote working, and it's all over a green no-brainer (ignoring all the other economic benefits).

It's happening now, and it's not stopping any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Russia and China are the reason to keep the Trident deterrent. Islamic threats can be dealt with by the security services mostly.

With no nuclear deterrent, we could be overrun within days.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
My head says "who the **** are we going to use them on?" but also "if 1950's technology is good enough for the US nuclear submarine force - quote the pentagon - 'we haven't replaced it because it works', then why is 1990's technology not good enough for us?"

It smacks of having new stuff for the sake of having new stuff to me. I'd keep the old subs.

It is reminiscent of the Navy's decision to get rid of Harriers (which are still used by the USMC), thus leaving us with 2 aircraft carriers, but no planes to fly from them, until we buy a load of F-35's from the Yanks at a cost of £100m each.

Doh!
Click to expand...

Yes, we won't know who we're going to use them on or if we're ever going to use them until somebody attacks us so the question is really who is most likely to attack us?

Russia under Putin is more likely now than ever while North Korea is arguably more obvious than Russia but we don't know too much about China's ambitions in that regard and Iran spent a lot of time using the threat to negotiate away sanctions.

I thought the US has replaced or are in the process of replacing their subs? I thought the design of the existing subs had proved inefficient and that a whole new class of sub was being used, one that could stay underwater 365 days per year.

Why do people replace their cars? Why do bus and train companies replace their rolling stock and shipping companies their vessels?

I'd still rather we felt secure enough not to need them.
 
Clive, video conferencing and that whole side of things is very much the way the world (or at least international companies) is moving, and nothing will change that.

It creates huge efficiencies in terms of time and cost that even if a little personal contact is lost, people know their jobs so well it's not really important.
 
Its for number crunchers, geeks and time serving deadbeats where innovation, personality and frankly anything they have to say is of no interest. Granted that two internal auditors droning on would make little difference in terms of persona contact. thats because they are cabbages anyway. its for the grunts

No one would seriously pitch for business by Skype.

"international companies" employ load of second raters anyway. Office politicians terrified of their bosses and counting down days to the pension. give me the start up to £10m anyday of the week
 
Last edited:
I use videoconferencing all the time. I'd never use it for a pitch, but I use it for multi-location meetings several times a week. It's a massive time and money saver, and there's no downside. People get lost on conference calls but they rarely do on videoconferences.
 
Grasshopper said:
An SME, by definition, has next to no use for a Video-Conferencing capability in the first place.

I think you're mistaking Skype and the like, with corporate video-conferencing. The former relies on the flakiest of all networks - the unpoliced and unmanaged Internet - whereas corporate VC is usually deployed across a private Network; which is tuned to the minute to support VC traffic.

The overall User experience is improved as a result (even when the Users ingress point is the Internet), and screens/documents can be shared freely and securely, to increase efficiency.

It also means you can cut back on paper, as you don't need to print off documents for the 20 trumpets you've been compelled to invite. Add this benefit to the intangible of less travel through increased remote working, and it's all over a green no-brainer (ignoring all the other economic benefits).

It's happening now, and it's not stopping any time soon.
Click to expand...

So what? it will be limited to grunts.

its the idea that it will cut right across business which is entirely wrong. it won't.

I've been on a few of these dreadful exercises and immediately the contact is dissipated. Everyone sits there like a lemon

it will be limited to pointless meetings about stationery budgets at big boring drab blue chips
 
Back
Top