Trident - worth the money?

[pap]

Since the Cold War, Britain has had a submarine-based nuclear capability. Trident is its current iteration, and costs at least £1 billion a year to run. This capability is due to be replaced, with projected costs around the £100 billion mark. Given the problems that we currently have balancing the nation's books, is the cost justified?

 

Are there other, cheaper options to maintain a nuclear deterrent, such as ICBMs?

 

Do we need a nuclear deterrent at all?

 

dune pointed out in another thread that our nuclear capability gets us to the top table, and while I'd like to believe that, I seriously doubt that threatening people with nukes is necessarily going to be a good negotiating tactics.

 

At best, a nuclear deterrent gives pause to anyone thinking of nuking us, but could anyone launch nukes at Western Europe without some form of retaliation? Or anywhere, for that matter?

 

To me, it seems like we're paying a lot of money for something we're never going to use, and never going to want to use.

Edited 21 August, 2011 by pap

[Thedelldays]

iF, IF you are going to have a nuclear deterrent, Trident is the cheapest option....and the best

 

as for costing £100bn.....that is spread over what...30+ years..???

[dune]

Having nuclear weapons is vital to maintaining our standing in the world. Whilst we retain them we will always sit at the top table and therefore punch above our weight.

[pap]

Do you think we need a deterrent though?

 

Trident and its predecessor were both products of the Cold War era. That era is 20 years dead now. We no longer have the spectre of mutually assured destruction hanging over us. What are the practical applications of a nuclear deterrent in this day and age? Doesn't seem to be acting as a deterrent for Islamic fundamentalists.

[Thedelldays]

Do you think we need a deterrent though?

 

Trident and its predecessor were both products of the Cold War era. That era is 20 years dead now. We no longer have the spectre of mutually assured destruction hanging over us. What are the practical applications of a nuclear deterrent in this day and age? Doesn't seem to be acting as a deterrent for Islamic fundamentalists.

 

how can you say that as a fact..? one attack in how many years..? (7/7)

 

and the world is a far more unstable state since the fall of the berlin wall, there are more wars, more unrest, more nukes spread around the world.....more nations have Nukes on standby......

 

so, why do we now NOT have the mutually assured destruction thing going on....just because it is not with mother russia (or is it..?)

[pap]

Having nuclear weapons is vital to maintaining our standing in the world. Whilst we retain them we will always sit at the top table and therefore punch above our weight.

 

Yeah, I saw you make this point earlier on. Not sure I buy it. Japan famously doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet managed to punch above its weight for decades in manufacturing and economics.

 

I'd argue that our place on the UN Permanent Security council has more to do with our place at the "top table". That doesn't go away if we're no longer able to launch megatons onto someone's front lawn.

[dune]

dune pointed out in another thread that our nuclear capability gets us to the top table, and while I'd like to believe that, I seriously doubt that threatening people with nukes is necessarily going to be a good negotiating tactics.

 

It's not about making threats. We don't need to make threats when we have nukes. In the good old days of our Imperial might often we wouldn't make threats - we'd just send a gunship into a rebellious port and invite the local ruler to dinner and honour him with a display of our guns. Having nukes gives a similar show of our superiority.

[Thedelldays]

 

I'd argue that our place on the UN Permanent Security council has more to do with our place at the "top table". That doesn't go away if we're no longer able to launch megatons onto someone's front lawn.

 

eeer yes it will, the 5 permanent members are the worlds 5 nuclear powers.......coincidence..?

[dune]

I'd argue that our place on the UN Permanent Security council has more to do with our place at the "top table". That doesn't go away if we're no longer able to launch megatons onto someone's front lawn.

 

What a naive thought. Without nukes we could be relegated at the UN in the course of time. With nukes we won't. No question and no doubt.

[pap]

how can you say that as a fact..? one attack in how many years..? (7/7)

 

and the world is a far more unstable state since the fall of the berlin wall, there are more wars, more unrest, more nukes spread around the world.....more nations have Nukes on standby......

 

so, why do we now NOT have the mutually assured destruction thing going on....just because it is not with mother russia (or is it..?)

 

More accurately, it's one attack that actually happened. There have been numerous plots which have been thwarted. The intent is there, but the implementation has been stopped.

 

And while I agree that more nations have nukes on standby, very few of the new countries that have nukes, such as India and Pakistan, have them pointed at us.

 

As the market for a lot of Russian and Chinese imports, it's not really in their interests to strike us. In a wider sense, it's not really in anybody's interest for nukes to go off anywhere.

[Thedelldays]

More accurately, it's one attack that actually happened. There have been numerous plots which have been thwarted. The intent is there, but the implementation has been stopped.

 

And while I agree that more nations have nukes on standby, very few of the new countries that have nukes, such as India and Pakistan, have them pointed at us.

 

As the market for a lot of Russian and Chinese imports, it's not really in their interests to strike us. In a wider sense, it's not really in anybody's interest for nukes to go off anywhere.

did you just make that up or find out online...?

 

just plucked that one out of the air did we..?

so russia dont have them pointed at us...nor china, nor india..???

[Thedelldays]

What a naive thought. Without nukes we could be relegated at the UN in the course of time. With nukes we won't. No question and no doubt.

 

and if we were to be relegated, there would be a void to fill.....and by who..?

greater power to the USA..? greater power to Russia..?

what about pakistan, get them in on the act..?

[pap]

What a naive thought. Without nukes we could be relegated at the UN in the course of time. With nukes we won't. No question and no doubt.

eeer yes it will, the 5 permanent members are the worlds 5 nuclear powers.......coincidence..?

 

Actually, the membership of the UN Security Council is made up of the victors of World War II. Having nuclear weapons is not a pre-requisite for membership, nor could have been. In 1946, the time when the Council was formed, only the US had nuclear weapons.

[dune]

In a wider sense, it's not really in anybody's interest for nukes to go off anywhere.

 

And a civilised county such as ours retaining a deterrent keeps the balance right. Russia isn't a stable democracy so we shouldn't drop our guard.

[dune]

The nations not so blest as thee

Must, in their turn, to tyrants fall,

While thou shalt flourish great and free:

The dread and envy of them all.

 

I know the Liberal Elite scowl on patriotism, but i'm proud of our glorious history and nukes are what keeps the Great in Great Britain. Give them up and everything is lost and we become a nothing country with mediocre influence.

[View From The Top]

eeer yes it will, the 5 permanent members are the worlds 5 nuclear powers.......coincidence..?

 

Factually incorrect.

 

The 5 permanent members are the WW2 victors.

 

If it were to do with nuclear weapons both India and Pakistan would be sat there.

 

Should we keeps nuc's? Sure, why not. Do we need a ballistic capability to deliver them? IMHO, no.

[Thedelldays]

Factually incorrect.

 

The 5 permanent members are the WW2 victors.

 

If it were to do with nuclear weapons both India and Pakistan would be sat there.

 

Should we keeps nuc's? Sure, why not. Do we need a ballistic capability to deliver them? IMHO, no.

 

cheapest and most practical option.....

[View From The Top]

cheapest and most practical option.....

 

Disagree totally but then I believe a ballistic capability is a cold war relic.

[Thedelldays]

Disagree totally but then I believe a ballistic capability is a cold war relic.

 

how is it not the cheapest and most practical option..?

[View From The Top]

how is it not the cheapest and most practical option..?

 

I do not see the point of a vehicle for lobbing warheads about that are designed for destroying cities.

 

Our nuclear arsenal and thinking should be based solely on tactical weapons and delivery systems.

 

All, of course, IMHO.

[Thedelldays]

I do not see the point of a vehicle for lobbing warheads about that are designed for destroying cities.

 

Our nuclear arsenal and thinking should be based solely on tactical weapons and delivery systems.

 

All, of course, IMHO.

using nukes as a tactical measure....christ, are you for real...?

[View From The Top]

using nukes as a tactical measure....christ, are you for real...?

 

Yep. We already posses them and have none for years, all the way back to when the plan was to use them to slow the Soviet advance across the German Plain.

 

What we don't need is city killers in the form that currently exists.

 

Your protective simply because your a submariner, understandable but hardly broadminded on the topic.

[Thedelldays]

Yep. We already posses them and have none for years, all the way back to when the plan was to use them to slow the Soviet advance across the German Plain.

 

What we don't need is city killers in the form that currently exists.

 

Your protective simply because your a submariner, understandable but hardly broadminded on the topic.

tell me sir, what do we need if we have nukes....go on, enlighten us all...what is the most cost effective, what is the most practical..

what give us global coverage.....tell us..?

 

as for being protective...I do not and will never serve on Vanguard class subs....also (as PMd you in the past) I dont alway work on subs...

[dubai_phil]

More accurately, it's one attack that actually happened. There have been numerous plots which have been thwarted. The intent is there, but the implementation has been stopped.

 

And while I agree that more nations have nukes on standby, very few of the new countries that have nukes, such as India and Pakistan, have them pointed at us.

 

As the market for a lot of Russian and Chinese imports, it's not really in their interests to strike us. In a wider sense, it's not really in anybody's interest for nukes to go off anywhere.

 

bullcrap. Utter apologistic bullcrap.

 

There is a simple reason why they are not yet aimed at us.

 

They simply have not yet developed the delivery systems to get them far enough.

 

The genie is out of the bottle and has been for 65 years. It will not go away.

 

ANYONE who doesn't believe for one minute that Iran is NOT actively building a Nuke programme must still be having 70's CND Acid flashbacks.

 

Pakistan aren't aiming their nukes at us - true. But their Nuke Scientists were damned happy to sell those secrets (via the IT Channel in Dubai) to anyone who wanted them.

 

You want to get rid of Nukes in this day and age then go kick the crap out of the Israelis. While that state exists with it's current attitude to it's obnoxious neighbours then everyone and their mother is trying to get them and that means bringing the extra pressure that Nukes would have, Not just at Israel itself as a target but at those states who (rightly) support it's Right to Exist.

 

It's about as smart an idea as selling off all of our Gold Reserves because they weren't needed that particular week.

 

Trident won't stop a nutter, but it sure as hell will stop someone with money and resources FUNDING a nutter

[Thedelldays]

will also add phil, that the current system provides the most cost effective, practical way of having this capability

[Lighthouse]

Do you think we need a deterrent though?

 

Trident and its predecessor were both products of the Cold War era. That era is 20 years dead now. We no longer have the spectre of mutually assured destruction hanging over us. What are the practical applications of a nuclear deterrent in this day and age? Doesn't seem to be acting as a deterrent for Islamic fundamentalists.

 

That's a very ignorant view IMO, it's like saying they aren't acting as a deterrent to teenage pregnancy. It was never designed with small scale terroism in mind. Even the biggest terrorist event in living memory, 911 only resulted in the deaths of a few thousand people. Nukes are chips in a MUCH bigger card game. What if relations with China, Russia or Pakistan turn sour, or North Korea or Iran build a functioning warhead? Things might be fine now, but projects like this take decades to put into service. If we wait until there is actually a threat to start building a nuclear deterrent it will be too late.

 

In response to VFTT, I think we do need the "city killers". Otherwise it's not so much of a deterrent. If, God forbid, we ended up in China one day, a few tactical nukes aren't going to keep us safe. If however the Chinese knew we could flatten Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong withing a matter of hours, it might stop a conflict from kicking off. That's the paradox here, the countries with the deadliest weapons are the ones least likely to go to war.

[aintforever]

Waste of money IMO, the best and cheapest deterrent would be to stop meddling in other countries affairs and stop starting wars in middle eastern sh!t-holes.

 

All this crap about Russia, China and Iran is just paranoid nonsense. Anyway, if they started a war on anywhere in Europe the US would rip them a new arsehole, it would be WW3 and game over regardless of how many nukes we have.

[Gemmel]

This might be a bit simplistic, but ultimately, if anyone sent a nuke over here, we'd still get the 5 minute warning, only we would be able to add that we've sent one back, so they will all die as well.

 

Warfare has moved on. The enemy is different these days. Trident was a necessary evil in its day and served its purpose very well. We are well enough aligned with the US to piggy back off them, with a 10 billion contritbution.

 

I'm not a peace loving hippy and in fact was very pro trident, but things have moved on and I am no longer sure the cost is justifiable, especially in these times.

[dune]

We are well enough aligned with the US to piggy back off them, with a 10 billion contritbution.

 

Are we?

 

Recently Obama referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas and said that we should open talks with Argentina over sovereignty. The Americans want us out and the region stable under Argentinian rule so that their oil companies can invest billions in exploiting the reserves. This is an example of a situation where our interests and the Americans interests differ and illustrates why we should resist being beholden to them.

[Gemmel]

Are we?

 

Recently Obama referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas and said that we should open talks with Argentina over sovereignty. The Americans want us out and the region stable under Argentinian rule so that their oil companies can invest billions in exploiting the reserves. This is an example of a situation where our interests and the Americans interests differ and illustrates why we should resist being beholden to them.

 

Dune we are both Tories and both understand what the Falklands was about.

 

We can't give it back whilst there are still families alive that lost people in that war.....give it another 20 years and it's thiers..... Its still too raw at the moment.

 

That doesnt detract from where we are with the US. The deal is perfect 10 billion (which those boys could do with) is a decent trade off.

[Lighthouse]

Waste of money IMO, the best and cheapest deterrent would be to stop meddling in other countries affairs and stop starting wars in middle eastern sh!t-holes.

 

All this crap about Russia, China and Iran is just paranoid nonsense. Anyway, if they started a war on anywhere in Europe the US would rip them a new arsehole, it would be WW3 and game over regardless of how many nukes we have.

 

How much did Poland meddle with Germany's affairs in the 1930s? Sadly, if someone like Jim Jong-Il ever got hold of some serious weapons, a 'live and let live' philosophy wouldn't cut it. If you're going to take that attitude, you could say that the entire military is useless and save hundreds of billions ever year.

 

As for not meddling in the Middle East, can you please describe your vision of the world without opperation Desert Storm, or if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan? We'd have a mad tyrant controlling 1/4 of the worlds oil reserves and a terrorist summer holiday camp.

 

As for ignoring any potential threats and running crying to the Americans, that's a terrible attitude to national secuirty. For a start we are reliant on America actually giving a sh*t. We could one day end up in a fight which they have no interest in, then what. Secondly, you're assuming that America is capable of policing the world on it's own. In a couple of decades, I reckon the Chinese military will easily match them for strength.

[ecuk268]

Are we?

 

Recently Obama referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas and said that we should open talks with Argentina over sovereignty. The Americans want us out and the region stable under Argentinian rule so that their oil companies can invest billions in exploiting the reserves. This is an example of a situation where our interests and the Americans interests differ and illustrates why we should resist being beholden to them.

 

But we are completely beholden to them as regards Trident.

 

We lease the rockets from the US Navy. The warheads use US components and are built by Lockheed-Martin at Burghfield who own much of the critical machinery used in the manufacturing process. The targeting software is bought from the US and possibly contains hidden "worms" that give the US some control.

 

The maintenance base in Plymouth is owned by a US company.

 

Hardly independent. Even Maggie Thatcher's government was forced to admit that we are entirely dependent on the US for our nuclear weapons.

[aintforever]

How much did Poland meddle with Germany's affairs in the 1930s? Sadly, if someone like Jim Jong-Il ever got hold of some serious weapons, a 'live and let live' philosophy wouldn't cut it. If you're going to take that attitude, you could say that the entire military is useless and save hundreds of billions ever year.

 

As for not meddling in the Middle East, can you please describe your vision of the world without opperation Desert Storm, or if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan? We'd have a mad tyrant controlling 1/4 of the worlds oil reserves and a terrorist summer holiday camp.

 

As for ignoring any potential threats and running crying to the Americans, that's a terrible attitude to national secuirty. For a start we are reliant on America actually giving a sh*t. We could one day end up in a fight which they have no interest in, then what. Secondly, you're assuming that America is capable of policing the world on it's own. In a couple of decades, I reckon the Chinese military will easily match them for strength.

 

I don't see what Poland in the 1930's has got to do with anything but there was a lot of meddling between the two countries and Russia prior to WW1, as for Jim Jong-Il, I don't see why a small island of the northern coast of Europe should bother him if we leave him alone.

 

As for Desert Storm and Afganistan - I'm sure the US and NATO could handle both those without us being involved.

 

I don't think we should run crying to the Yanks but we should look at the worldwide situation and use it to our advantage, of course having no nukes has a risk but the likelihood of them being needed in today's world is so remote it doesn't warrant wasting billions on.

[Lighthouse]

I don't see what Poland in the 1930's has got to do with anything but there was a lot of meddling between the two countries and Russia prior to WW1, as for Jim Jong-Il, I don't see why a small island of the northern coast of Europe should bother him if we leave him alone.

 

As for Desert Storm and Afganistan - I'm sure the US and NATO could handle both those without us being involved.

 

I don't think we should run crying to the Yanks but we should look at the worldwide situation and use it to our advantage, of course having no nukes has a risk but the likelihood of them being needed in today's world is so remote it doesn't warrant wasting billions on.

 

Whatever the offical excuses for the invasion of Poland were, the real reasons were based largely on the greed of Hitler and Stalin and their desire for more territory. I don't know a lot about 1930s politics, but the Poles did bugger all to warrant being invaded.

 

Reasons for disputes with North Korea. Well, there's possible trading and military support for South Korea. A rogue general taking a dislike to a potential disagreement with China. Ecconomic tensions. Take your pick. The USA has managed to fall out with dosens of regimes on the other side of the world, they aren't the only ones capable of doing it.

 

"NATO can handle it without us getting involved." You do know what NATO is right?

[dune]

The bottom line is that we can't give up nukes until a we are covered by a star wars type shield.

[Thedelldays]

 

"NATO can handle it without us getting involved." You do know what NATO is right?

 

We are NATO (less than what the yanks are to be fair)

[Chez]

can't we just lie and pretend we have them and spend the money on something worthwhile?

[Thedelldays]

can't we just lie and pretend we have them and spend the money on something worthwhile?

 

if only

[Lighthouse]

We are NATO (less than what the yanks are to be fair)

 

That's the point I was making.

[aintforever]

Whatever the offical excuses for the invasion of Poland were, the real reasons were based largely on the greed of Hitler and Stalin and their desire for more territory. I don't know a lot about 1930s politics, but the Poles did bugger all to warrant being invaded.

 

Reasons for disputes with North Korea. Well, there's possible trading and military support for South Korea. A rogue general taking a dislike to a potential disagreement with China. Ecconomic tensions. Take your pick. The USA has managed to fall out with dosens of regimes on the other side of the world, they aren't the only ones capable of doing it.

 

"NATO can handle it without us getting involved." You do know what NATO is right?

 

I am aware we are in NATO, but my point is the US could easily have sorted out Iraq and Afganistan without our help. Why do we feel the need to be the lap dog of the World Police?

 

If we keep sticking our **** in where it's not needed or wanted, yes you could have a case for spending money on trident. Much better stay out of it all and spend the money on other things that are a much bigger threat (avoiding energy or environmental crisis for example). Blowing what little cash we have on a massive bomb is retarded IMO.

[Thedelldays]

I am aware we are in NATO, but my point is the US could easily have sorted out Iraq and Afganistan without our help. Why do we feel the need to be the lap dog of the World Police?

 

If we keep sticking our **** in where it's not needed or wanted, yes you could have a case for spending money on trident. Much better stay out of it all and spend the money on other things that are a much bigger threat (avoiding energy or environmental crisis for example). Blowing what little cash we have on a massive bomb is retarded IMO.

 

agree...lets get out of the EU and stop ploughing cash into it....

[Jonnyboy]

NZ and Oz dont have nukes and live a pretty nice life out there.

[pap]

bullcrap. Utter apologistic bullcrap.

 

There is a simple reason why they are not yet aimed at us.

 

They simply have not yet developed the delivery systems to get them far enough.

 

The genie is out of the bottle and has been for 65 years. It will not go away.

 

ANYONE who doesn't believe for one minute that Iran is NOT actively building a Nuke programme must still be having 70's CND Acid flashbacks.

 

Pakistan aren't aiming their nukes at us - true. But their Nuke Scientists were damned happy to sell those secrets (via the IT Channel in Dubai) to anyone who wanted them.

 

You want to get rid of Nukes in this day and age then go kick the crap out of the Israelis. While that state exists with it's current attitude to it's obnoxious neighbours then everyone and their mother is trying to get them and that means bringing the extra pressure that Nukes would have, Not just at Israel itself as a target but at those states who (rightly) support it's Right to Exist.

 

It's about as smart an idea as selling off all of our Gold Reserves because they weren't needed that particular week.

 

Trident won't stop a nutter, but it sure as hell will stop someone with money and resources FUNDING a nutter

 

The intention of the post was not to apologise for India and Pakistan. It's simply a statement of fact reflecting their currrent capabilities. Pakistan and India are more concerned with each other than us and like you point out, they presently lack the means to do so. Even when they do secure intercontinental delivery systems, why would they stop targeting each other, and what would they gain from targeting, say, a small island in Western Europe?

 

Israel is a whole other debate. When all is said and done, they have to be responsible for their own security and their own rumoured deterrent. I don't see how us lacking Trident changes that, nor do I see us nuking a Middle Eastern country because of its disputes with Israel. There would be very little left of the Middle East if we did.

 

Finally, have to take issue with your last point. The US has one of the largest nuclear capabilities in the world, and thus, one of the largest deterrents in the world. Someone still funded 9/11.

[pap]

But we are completely beholden to them as regards Trident.

 

We lease the rockets from the US Navy. The warheads use US components and are built by Lockheed-Martin at Burghfield who own much of the critical machinery used in the manufacturing process. The targeting software is bought from the US and possibly contains hidden "worms" that give the US some control.

 

The maintenance base in Plymouth is owned by a US company.

 

Hardly independent. Even Maggie Thatcher's government was forced to admit that we are entirely dependent on the US for our nuclear weapons.

 

Didn't know we were that tightly 'integrated' with the US.

 

So what you're saying is that the UK tax payer is paying billions to the US military industrial complex for weapons that it might not actually be able to use?

[pap]

That's a very ignorant view IMO, it's like saying they aren't acting as a deterrent to teenage pregnancy. It was never designed with small scale terroism in mind. Even the biggest terrorist event in living memory, 911 only resulted in the deaths of a few thousand people. Nukes are chips in a MUCH bigger card game. What if relations with China, Russia or Pakistan turn sour, or North Korea or Iran build a functioning warhead? Things might be fine now, but projects like this take decades to put into service. If we wait until there is actually a threat to start building a nuclear deterrent it will be too late.

 

In response to VFTT, I think we do need the "city killers". Otherwise it's not so much of a deterrent. If, God forbid, we ended up in China one day, a few tactical nukes aren't going to keep us safe. If however the Chinese knew we could flatten Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong withing a matter of hours, it might stop a conflict from kicking off. That's the paradox here, the countries with the deadliest weapons are the ones least likely to go to war.

 

The point was that our enemies, such as they are, aren't the same as when Trident was conceived. We used to worry about large, easily identifiable and locatable nation states with similar capability. Trident was the answer to that age. It doesn't seem relevant to the political situation now.

 

If relations with any of these big powers turns sour, the breakdown in relationship is unlikely to be confined to the UK. We are not going to p*ss these people off independently, certainly not to the point of nuclear war. If any "beef" develops, it'll be more likely to happen between large nations and/or blocs of nations.

 

From where I'm sat, sounds like we're paying billions of pounds to be a sparkler at a fireworks display.

[Thedelldays]

NZ and Oz dont have nukes and live a pretty nice life out there.

 

respect to that

[teamsaint]

and all this "sitting at the top table" does what exactly? feeds politicians egos?

This country needs to grow up.

 

we need to stop arming ourselves and the rest of the world, and start building houses , transport infrastructure, feeding ourselves properly, and setting an example rather than threatening other countries with destruction.

 

believe the politicians, bankers, gun runners(manufacturers) and drug barons if you want. Or you can choose to look for a way forward.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

From which exact threat does our independent nuclear deterrent supposedly protect us?

 

Russia - Will only need to threaten to turn the gas off to get their way in future.

Terrorist Groups - Not a easily targeted nation state in the first place and so irrational they are unlikely to be deterred by SLBM's anyway.

'Rogue' Nations - Adequately countered by a combination of the existing US deterrent and a NATO wide ABM system in my view.

 

The US nuclear force will almost certainly continue whatever we do here, so what real justification still exists for prolonging what some might describe as a out dated relic of the cold-war ? I've seen unofficial estimates for the true costs of the 'successor' programme (you must include significant costs associated with major investments required at the AWE Aldermarston) and trust me they're truly frightening. If it comes down to a choice of having effective conventional forces or a shiny new fleet of mega expensive SSBN's that will come close to bankrupting the defence budget ... well I vote for the former.