Why post an Australian orientated article on U.K.?
The program won’t cost the U.K. money, it could create revenue and jobs, while simultaneously improving international security.
Also the article tries to make the total cost sound scary by putting it as $245bn. But that’s actually only $8bn a year, or 1.2% of Australia’s budget, or 22% of the Australian Defence Force budget. Of that $8bn only half is new spend.
$8 billion a year for a nuclear deterrent seems like a good deal with Russia and China and all.
Will also put money into the UK defence industry.
Channel tunnel estimate £5.5 billion. Actual cost £21 billion.
2 new UK aircraft carriers estimate £3.9 billion. Actual cost £6 billion.
New subs? Maybe a trillion
For comparison, the Manhattan Project was USD2.2bln in 1944 => USD93bln relative cost
The British atomic bomb cost around GBP200mln in the 1940s => USD30bln
USS Nautilus, the first nuclear sub, cost USD55mln in 1952 => USD1.7bln
(plus a lot of prior research, obviously)
4 comments
Why post an Australian orientated article on U.K.?
The program won’t cost the U.K. money, it could create revenue and jobs, while simultaneously improving international security.
Also the article tries to make the total cost sound scary by putting it as $245bn. But that’s actually only $8bn a year, or 1.2% of Australia’s budget, or 22% of the Australian Defence Force budget. Of that $8bn only half is new spend.
$8 billion a year for a nuclear deterrent seems like a good deal with Russia and China and all.
Will also put money into the UK defence industry.
Channel tunnel estimate £5.5 billion. Actual cost £21 billion.
2 new UK aircraft carriers estimate £3.9 billion. Actual cost £6 billion.
New subs? Maybe a trillion
For comparison, the Manhattan Project was USD2.2bln in 1944 => USD93bln relative cost
The British atomic bomb cost around GBP200mln in the 1940s => USD30bln
USS Nautilus, the first nuclear sub, cost USD55mln in 1952 => USD1.7bln
(plus a lot of prior research, obviously)