Ministers to give £1 billion go-ahead for new nuclear weapons

June 18th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to approve £1bn scheme to build new nuclear deterrent this week
Contract to develop two new nuclear reactor cores expected to go to Rolls-Royce

By
Jason Groves and Gerri Peev

PUBLISHED:

05:16 EST, 17 June 2012

|

UPDATED:

18:59 EST, 17 June 2012

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will today approve a £1billion contract to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons – despite opposition to the entire project by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Hammond is set to award the huge contract to Rolls-Royce to develop two new nuclear reactor cores, one of which will be used for the submarines designed to replace the Vanguard boats carrying Trident missiles.

The move will anger many Lib Dems pressing for a cheaper alternative that is not based on submarines.

Deterrent: Both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems want to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent

Deterrent: Both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems want to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent

One Lib Dem source described the move
as ‘mischief-making of the highest order, spun by detractors of the
Coalition, at a difficult time for us’.

But Mr Hammond insisted yesterday that a final decision had not been taken on Trident.

The Lib Dems oppose a costly
‘like-for-like’ replacement of the system and have pushed the final
‘main gate’ decision back to 2016 – after the next election.

New contract: Defence secretary Philip Hammond is expected to announce a new deal ordering nuclear reactors for submarines this week

Review: Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey is looking at cheaper ways to maintain the UK's nuclear deterrent

New contract: Defence secretary Philip Hammond, left, is expected to announce a new deal ordering nuclear reactors for submarines this week, while Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey, right, is looking at cheaper options

But Mr Hammond’s decision will be seen
as a signal of intent and could make it harder to justify dropping a
full Trident replacement in future.

He said: ‘We have already done a
review of options and value for money of the Trident programme and that
concluded that replacing the Vanguard submarines and continuing with
Trident was the best-value solution to maintaining a nuclear deterrent.’

The move comes as it emerged yesterday
that senior Tories are trying to water down plans for House of Lords
reform to prevent a Conservative rebellion.

Many are threatening to revolt over
the issue next month – when ministers are due to publish detailed
proposals – after the Lib Dems abstained from a vote designed to support
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, under attack from Labour over the BSkyB
bid.

Tory MP Eleanor Laing said: ‘Why are
we supposed to bend over backwards to support Nick Clegg over something
that only matters to Lib Dems when his party cannot support a minister
who has done nothing wrong?

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Newest
Oldest
Best rated
Worst rated

We need it, because we needs a missile pointed at every country! The US, China, Russia, even IRELAND. Then IF they backstab us, we can drop a nuke on them for ta very much!!!!!Q

– Ugak Gra mogarch, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, 18/6/2012 08:22

– G Harry, Hants, 18/6/2012 07:50 You have just described what a deterrent is.

– harry, England, 18/6/2012 08:09

Apart from France no other country in the EU sees any need to have nuclear weapons, so why do we need them. If the UK got “bombed” and the wind was in the right direction all our EU allies would experience the fallout benefit The Trident would not be able to return as the UK would be covered in radiation so where would it go?
You would think that Chernobyl and the recent Japan disaster would make people aware of the effects of releasing uncontrolled radiation.

– G Harry, Hants, 18/6/2012 07:50

– Sam, london, 17/6/2012 23:37 sam ,these weapons are a deterrent,for all we know if we had not developed them we may not be free to speak our minds in these columns as we are doing.

– harry, England, 18/6/2012 07:33

And where pray is he going to keep them?
Not in the waters of an Independent Scotland.
Pool of London?
Southampton Docks?
Another example of wooly thinking, or is he just stuffing his mutton head in the sand?

– RABIGYIN, SCOTLAND, 18/6/2012 07:08

So, this is why they have been making all these “cut backs”. To fund the new generation of nuclear submarines. This will have Al Qaeda shaking in their boots won’t it.

– Trevor, Ammanford, Wales, 18/6/2012 06:09

The usual Liberal/ socialist claptrap about not being Great Britain any more, and spending every penny we have on their crackpot social nonsense.
Are we to ever defend our rights as a nation. ? As Anauran Bevan said ,
” would you send me naked into the negotiating chamber”. The same idiots he was talking about are still with us.

– D. R Birt , Lincoln UK, 18/6/2012 05:28

detonate one in London, that will cut the unemployment rate, get rid of the spongers, the royal family and government all in one.

– illya kuryakin , Kiev , 18/6/2012 05:23

They could make higher education free for the same money as they spend on one sub. But hey let’s show the world that we have a brand new sub vs 8 huge Russian ones, what a waste of money!!!

– Somebody, The Earth, 18/6/2012 04:36

The threats to the Uk the major developed world are no longer WMDs from nations of the nuclear club. It is important to maintain a viable buclear deterent bevause it takes so long to design, build deploy but in reality the biggest threats are from sophisticated cyber attack such as Stuxnet. Attacks such as this occurr every day anomomity means it is not always entirely obvious who is responsible. Attacking the finance systems or essential services of power, water, communications transport can easily criple sophisticated nations such as the UK or the US.

– Dave B (Brit ex-pat), Uxbridge, Canada, 18/6/2012 01:42

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.