- looks like my comment on how France has done it better (so far) went by the waysideSW1 wrote: If the capacity and costs in the next 20 years ends up residing solely with defence it will not be sustainable
- other than personnel with appropriate scientific background and more specific training, the silos have been there and the change will not be drastic ( cost wise)
Fuel in - how you use it (= how you design your reactor) - how you dispose of the spent fuel (assuming you don't want to have an ever-increasing warhead stockpile)
- that's your 'bigger picture' for national decision making
- then you also have the boats themselves: Osborne resided over the whole-of-life costing of purchasing decisions; there was a certain year (for passing the Maingate) when that criteria set became mandatory; he did not want to breach his 'own' laws s he thought he would be in "the seat" for longer... may be even become the PM; just guess where the extra £10 bn contingency came from, very soon after the MG had been passed. TIP: relates to the discussion above