mizdarby Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Today the MOD (Ministry of Defence) has announced that private contractors are to take over the role of looking after the UK's nuclear weapons in Scotland. They have signed a 15-year contract with ABL Alliance to provide support for the Trident weapons system at HM Naval Base Clyde. Under the new contract 149 MoD civilian posts will transfer to the alliance. The jobs are in industrial and technical grades, warehousing and logistic support services, while supervisors and managers are also transferring.Thirty-nine Royal Navy posts will also be seconded to the alliance, which comprises AWE plc, Babcock and Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems (LMUKSS). The MoD said it decided in May 2011 that the most effective way to sustain the workforce in the future was to use an experienced supplier within the private sector. ABL Alliance will provide support to the Trident Strategic Weapon System at the Royal Naval Armament Depot (RNAD) Coulport and the Strategic Weapon Support Building (SWSB) Faslane. Sensible use of private money, to support and perhaps improve the military. Or just a bit scary, having organisations with an eye for turning a profit, being at the heart of the military.Private companies, have always designed and manufactured, the hardware/software used by the armed forces, but is it such a good idea, to have the wheels of big business so close to the actual heart of the nuclear missile program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 having organisations with an eye for turning a profit, being at the heart of the military. Are you suggesting that the government (pretty much any one of them) isn't an organisation with an eye for turning profit? The difference isn't about profits imo, I want to say it is about business ethics or safe operating protocols or something, but I immediately question which one would be better in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Government can't turn a profit. They produce nothing, and are financed with tax dollars. They don't make one thin dime of the money that they spend. It's all other peoples. (tax payers.) For some reason, I just can't get comfy with a private business maintaining/in control of nukes. This is the same company that charges 600 dollars for a hammer, etc.... I will grant, that these are likely the very same people that built the weapons, and designed the support hardware/software for them, so, they would have a bit of a leg up on the military, but, not like the folks that did the building, are going to be the same folks that do the watching...... the builders are off working on bigger and better ways to wipe out cities.... the folks actually doing the work here are going to be folks that are trained by the company to do so..... kinda like the military before them. Difference being, the military is a LOT less concerned about turning a profit on the job........ I am really not sure what the best course is here. Edited July 28, 2012 by HeyYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Governments are also investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Ooops. Edited my first post. government's CAN'T turn a profit. Investors? My question would be, do they get any return on their investments? Or, do they lose their shirt because they invest in 'unwise' adventures? (Solyndra springs immediately to mind....) I haven't seen any numbers on returns from US government "investment" in anything, aside from a couple car companies, and those were loans, that were paid back early..... I don't even know what the terms of said loans were. If the government MAKES money on anything at all, I would be truly amazed... that is just so out of character for them...... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 They invest in both business and other governments. Any return on investment would be a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 They invest in both business and other governments. Any return on investment would be a profit. I am aware of the definition of profit, my question becomes, in the overall scheme of things, do their investments, taken as a whole, make them money, or cost them money? Just like any other investor, it's the big picture that tells the tale. Sure, individual investments might turn a profit, but, their are always those that they lose out on as well. 500 million dollar loss on Solyndra alone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't see why the private sector can't do it, the important thing is competence and value for money. As for making profit, if they can provide a good service, value for money and make a profit then it shows just how inefficient the public sector is. The problem with some private sector contracts is they've not been given on the basis on competence and value but instead on greasing the right palms, G4S for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't see why the private sector can't do it, the important thing is competence and value for money. As for making profit, if they can provide a good service, value for money and make a profit then it shows just how inefficient the public sector is. The problem with some private sector contracts is they've not been given on the basis on competence and value but instead on greasing the right palms, G4S for example. I think that right there is the big question..... the military isn't concerned with turning a profit on the job, only with getting the job done, and, hopefully... done right. Private sector is going to be concerned about making money on the deal. So, where are they going to cut costs, to maximize profits? I suppose, only time will tell if this was a good idea or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't see why the private sector can't do it, the important thing is competence and value for money. As for making profit, if they can provide a good service, value for money and make a profit then it shows just how inefficient the public sector is. The problem with some private sector contracts is they've not been given on the basis on competence and value but instead on greasing the right palms, G4S for example. I think that right there is the big question..... the military isn't concerned with turning a profit on the job, only with getting the job done, and, hopefully... done right. Private sector is going to be concerned about making money on the deal. So, where are they going to cut costs, to maximize profits? I suppose, only time will tell if this was a good idea or not. They can cut costs by cutting waste and being more efficient, the public sector in the U.K has got wasting money down to a fine art. The private sector have an incentive to be efficient, not being so cuts into their bottom line and they run risk of losing the contract if they don't provide an acceptable level of service. The public sector have no incentive, they've always seen the taxpayer pocket as a magical thing that dispenses endless piles of cash. Of course there are good and bad companies, the trick is use the good ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now