Defence reviews can't exclude nuclear weapons, but the choice need not be renewal or abolition
We need a wider debate on Trident, which has been excluded from Liam Fox's forthcoming strategic defence review. Some military leaders support him because they do not want Trident's future to be discussed in the same context as are troop numbers and conventional equipment. But Trident cannot be excluded from the painful examination of public expenditure in all departments of government.
The agreement between the partners in the UK's new coalition government states that Britain's nuclear deterrent will be maintained, that its renewal will be scrutinised to ensure value for money, and that the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. As a Lib Dem, let me take the opportunity so helpfully offered.
Nuclear weapons are very expensive weapons seeking a role and a purpose in the post-cold war world. But other than possibly ensuring a place at the top table, it is difficult to find one. Against terrorists, they are less effective than conventional weapons or the soft power of men and women with the skills to reach people's hearts and minds. Against psychotic states like North Korea, a nuclear attack would almost certainly lead to retaliation capable of destroying much of the population and most of the economic infrastructure of our ally, South Korea. Against other current nuclear powers, their usefulness is again questionable, since erstwhile enemies like Russia and China are now our partners or allies.
Fox rightly said recently: "The technology doesn't currently exist to maintain a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent with three submarines." The bigger question, and one that has considerable cost implications, is whether a continuous at-sea deterrent is still needed today, in a world in which traditional assumptions about relative influence and power no longer hold good.
We do not have to decide between a vastly expensive like-for-like renewal (which would send all the wrong signals to potential nuclear proliferators) and abolition at this point in time. We can minimise our nuclear deterrent stage by stage, at each encouraging others to join us in a global move towards nuclear disarmament, and doing so in the light of the responses of other nuclear nations.
For the UK, the first stage could be a reduction in the number of Trident-carrying submarines from four to three. Before he left office, Gordon Brown was considering such a step. It could be achieved by not replacing the first of the submarines to be taken out of service.
Bearing in mind Fox's statement, that would indeed bring to an end continuous at-sea deterrence. Recent research published in its official journal by the Royal United Services Institute suggests that a second stage would be to keep Trident submarines in port, with at least one on alert status able to sail in a developing crisis situation. With one submarine on alert status and two in port, the UK would have a smaller but still effective deterrent, and would save several billion pounds a year.
Stage-by-stage minimisation would enable the UK to take into account technological and political developments over the next few years. The commitment of the Obama administration to nuclear weapons minimisation and eventual abolition remains strong. A number of influential non-nuclear powers like Egypt and Indonesia are trying to extend nuclear-free zones beyond Latin America and Africa to central Asia and the Middle East. If these initiatives are successful, there may well come a time when our own reduced deterrent should be on the negotiating table. It would be a mistake of the first order to get locked into a more expensive modernised deterrent with a lifetime of several decades ahead of it.
The UK's contribution to the nuclear weapons debate, strongly led by Brown, has been impressive and appreciated internationally. We should not retreat from it. By maintaining the high quality of our technical work on verification and the path-breaking joint research with a non-nuclear weapons country, Norway, we will sustain that contribution. We should add to it an offer to train some of the new generation of inspectors that the IAEA will require, as we are one of the few countries with experience of dealing with nuclear weapons. Beyond that, we should propose to the IAEA a study of the cyber-threats to the command and control systems on which nuclear peace currently depends.
Newscribe : get free news in real time
Comments (…)
The agreement between the partners in the UK's new coalition government states that Britain's nuclear deterrent will be maintained, that its renewal will be scrutinised to ensure value for money, and that the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. As a Lib Dem, let me take the opportunity so helpfully offered.
Nuclear weapons are very expensive weapons seeking a role and a purpose in the post-cold war world. But other than possibly ensuring a place at the top table, it is difficult to find one. Against terrorists, they are less effective than conventional weapons or the soft power of men and women with the skills to reach people's hearts and minds. Against psychotic states like North Korea, a nuclear attack would almost certainly lead to retaliation capable of destroying much of the population and most of the economic infrastructure of our ally, South Korea. Against other current nuclear powers, their usefulness is again questionable, since erstwhile enemies like Russia and China are now our partners or allies.
Fox rightly said recently: "The technology doesn't currently exist to maintain a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent with three submarines." The bigger question, and one that has considerable cost implications, is whether a continuous at-sea deterrent is still needed today, in a world in which traditional assumptions about relative influence and power no longer hold good.
We do not have to decide between a vastly expensive like-for-like renewal (which would send all the wrong signals to potential nuclear proliferators) and abolition at this point in time. We can minimise our nuclear deterrent stage by stage, at each encouraging others to join us in a global move towards nuclear disarmament, and doing so in the light of the responses of other nuclear nations.
For the UK, the first stage could be a reduction in the number of Trident-carrying submarines from four to three. Before he left office, Gordon Brown was considering such a step. It could be achieved by not replacing the first of the submarines to be taken out of service.
Bearing in mind Fox's statement, that would indeed bring to an end continuous at-sea deterrence. Recent research published in its official journal by the Royal United Services Institute suggests that a second stage would be to keep Trident submarines in port, with at least one on alert status able to sail in a developing crisis situation. With one submarine on alert status and two in port, the UK would have a smaller but still effective deterrent, and would save several billion pounds a year.
Stage-by-stage minimisation would enable the UK to take into account technological and political developments over the next few years. The commitment of the Obama administration to nuclear weapons minimisation and eventual abolition remains strong. A number of influential non-nuclear powers like Egypt and Indonesia are trying to extend nuclear-free zones beyond Latin America and Africa to central Asia and the Middle East. If these initiatives are successful, there may well come a time when our own reduced deterrent should be on the negotiating table. It would be a mistake of the first order to get locked into a more expensive modernised deterrent with a lifetime of several decades ahead of it.
The UK's contribution to the nuclear weapons debate, strongly led by Brown, has been impressive and appreciated internationally. We should not retreat from it. By maintaining the high quality of our technical work on verification and the path-breaking joint research with a non-nuclear weapons country, Norway, we will sustain that contribution. We should add to it an offer to train some of the new generation of inspectors that the IAEA will require, as we are one of the few countries with experience of dealing with nuclear weapons. Beyond that, we should propose to the IAEA a study of the cyber-threats to the command and control systems on which nuclear peace currently depends.
Newscribe : get free news in real time
Comments (…)
Comments in chronological order
-
operationjulie
20 Jun 2010, 10:04PMThere are certain non nuclear countries that have a full nuclear deterrent in bits ready to be assembled in less than two weeks. Far better to keep it in mothballs should the need arise, than waste billions patrolling the seas for nothing. having said that, vapourising entire cities is not the way a civilised nation should behave.
-
sideshowjim
20 Jun 2010, 10:13PMWell how many bloody warheads do we actually need??? The Soviet empire isn't exactly as expansive as it once was. So maybe we don't quite need the footprint we apparently did before? (Enough to obliterate France, perhaps, a-la Yes Minister?) Or of course if it's just about staying on the Security council, how about just 1?
-
MoveAnyMountain
20 Jun 2010, 10:13PMNuclear weapons are very expensive weapons seeking a role and a purpose in the post-cold war world. But other than possibly ensuring a place at the top table, it is difficult to find one.
Nuclear weapons are not expensive. That is why Britain embraced them in the 1950s. They are cheap. And a place at the Top Table is reason enough to keep them. Britain should be at the Top Table.Against terrorists, they are less effective than conventional weapons or the soft power of men and women with the skills to reach people's hearts and minds.
The author misses the obvious - we deal with terrorists because our nuclear weapons make any other attack on us foolish. Get rid of those weapons and we may wish we only had terrorist attacks.Against psychotic states like North Korea, a nuclear attack would almost certainly lead to retaliation capable of destroying much of the population and most of the economic infrastructure of our ally, South Korea. Against other current nuclear powers, their usefulness is again questionable, since erstwhile enemies like Russia and China are now our partners or allies.
Yes but we are hardly likely to attack North Korea are we? Russia and China are our friends now but there is no reason to think they will be forever. Any more than France will be. We need to keep the nuclear option - and once we give it up, it will be gone forever.Fox rightly said recently: "The technology doesn't currently exist to maintain a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent with three submarines." The bigger question, and one that has considerable cost implications, is whether a continuous at-sea deterrent is still needed today, in a world in which traditional assumptions about relative influence and power no longer hold good.
Well yes. There is nothing about the modern world which suggests any traditional assumptions about influence and power have changed.We can minimise our nuclear deterrent stage by stage, at each encouraging others to join us in a global move towards nuclear disarmament, and doing so in the light of the responses of other nuclear nations.
If we felt like being so stupid, we could. But then we would have to spend more on conventional forces to replace that lost capacity.For the UK, the first stage could be a reduction in the number of Trident-carrying submarines from four to three.
Which is to say Britain would cease to have a credible deterrent and hence would become an easier target for a nuclear attack.With one submarine on alert status and two in port, the UK would have a smaller but still effective deterrent, and would save several billion pounds a year.
So you mean all three in port, slowly rusting, but one ready to move out if any crisis should arise? The problem with that is that all three would be destroyed in a first strike on Britain. Great. We may as well not bother. Also the costs of removing one submarine are trivial. We would still have to pay for the actual weapons, just fewer of them.It would be a mistake of the first order to get locked into a more expensive modernised deterrent with a lifetime of several decades ahead of it.
I beg to differ. If pigs should fly we might want to consider our deterrent. But the world is never going to disarm. It should never disarm. And to rest Britain's future on the assumption they will is beneath asinine.The UK's contribution to the nuclear weapons debate, strongly led by Brown, has been impressive and appreciated internationally. We should not retreat from it.
Really? News to the world I expect. What a waste of an article. The only vaguely credible suggestion - dropping from four to three submarines - is just silly and would neither satisfy the pro-Soviet, anti-nuclear campaigners, nor defend Britain. It wouldn't even save that much money. -
-
sneekyboy
20 Jun 2010, 10:18PMBuy an island off the coast and put 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles on it. Then patrol the waters with conventional navy and let the airforce defend the site. No new and costly subs, running costs or problems with 24/7/365 deterrence. Keep 1 sub on alert in the docks, to sail if we have heightened tensions with someone it can be put to sea. -
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:20PMWe need a nuclear deterrent to ensure that the worst we face is terrorists. Welcome to the 21st Century, warfare by proxy, ciber war and breaking down your opposition by flooding them with drugs and counterfeit money a la North Korea and the Super Dollars. Terrorist organisations get funded because states could not attack the UK directly.
-
MartynInEurope
20 Jun 2010, 10:22PMMs Shirley WIlliams: I have great respect for you, as one of Britain's intellectual free-thinkers, kind-hearted veterans and as a strong political long-distance runner, but I do find the following a little hard to swallow:Against terrorists, they are less effective than conventional weapons or the soft power of men and women with the skills to reach people's hearts and minds.
In my humble opinion, nuclear weapons are less effective against terrorists, because ... they are not effective against terrorists at all. -
- Recommend? (10)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:24PMMoveAnyMountain
20 Jun 2010, 10:13PM .... Nuclear weapons are not expensive.
MAM, you know a bloke with a special on for discount nuclear weapons, one careful owner, never out of the silo, must see? -
-
AllyF
20 Jun 2010, 10:25PMContributor
Did you run this past the Bilderberg meeting while you were there? -
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:27PMRing! Ring! Hallo, is that Mister Mountain? Doctor Ahmadinajacket here, I hear you have a sale on.
-
- Recommend? (2)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:28PMI agree with the first point in the article - Trident should be part of the review. The first question is 'Do we need Nuclear Weapons?'. I think that we do, not because of a position at the Top Table but to deter any state from attacking us. There are so-called Rogue States (think of North Korea as Shirley does) who do have Nuclear Weapons so we do need to ensure that we deter them. OK, so the review then would be how do we provide an effective deterrent at the cheapest price. If we get rid of Trident then we have to replace the weapons as well as the warheads are not interchangeable between different types of weapons. That would need new warheads which would need testing - anyone fancy us testing Nuclear Bombs? So, given that we need a deterrent, what is the realistic alternative? Yes, the overall 20-year cost his high but it does cover the 20-years and most of the money will be spent in the UK (missiles already paid for etc.). With the complaints against cutting public spending (cause job cuts etc.) surely the same argument applies here? (ready to be flamed for twisting the Left's own argument against them!)
-
- Recommend? (3)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:29PM
We do not have to decide between a vastly expensive like-for-like renewal (which would send all the wrong signals to potential nuclear proliferators)
Shirley,
I presume you're referring to Israel here. Oops sorry, I forgot, there's nothing potential about their nuclear proliferation is there... -
- Recommend? (3)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:30PM@MartynInEurope 'In my humble opinion, nuclear weapons are less effective against terrorists, because ... they are not effective against terrorists at all.' Indeed, and neither is that their purpose. And can we please throw out this stupid 'cold war relic' idea and that we no longer 'have to flatten' moscow. The world in 20 years may well see a nuclear arms race in the middle east if Iran aqcuires the bomb. I don't know about others, but I quite like living in a country that isn't faced with nuclear blackmail. Trident is intended NOT to be used. If it is used it has failed in its sole purpose - deterrence.
-
- Recommend? (6)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
PeteSaman
20 Jun 2010, 10:30PMBritain has a "nuclear deterrent" and nasty countries have "weapons of mass destruction". Oh the joy of doublespeak. -
- Recommend? (11)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:31PM@ Shirley '
We do not have to decide between a vastly expensive like-for-like renewal (which would send all the wrong signals to potential nuclear proliferators)
Fantastic sentiments, but do you really think Britain sending a signal to the likes of Iran is going to stop it trying to get these weapons? Not every country has the same scruples -
- Recommend? (1)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:34PMOh Shirley, I wish you were the Lib Dem leader right now. It's not too late. Age is no obstacle, and having one's seat in the Lords should be no barrier. Run Shirley, run.
-
- Recommend? (2)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
AlabasterCrashesD0wn
20 Jun 2010, 10:35PMAgainst other current nuclear powers, their usefulness is again questionable, since erstwhile enemies like Russia and China are now our partners or allies
The situation may be improving slightly, but Russia is barely an ally. We expelled four Russian diplomats only 3 years ago( in 2007),and they in turn expelled four of ours, so it would be very foolish indeed to get rid of our nuclear deterrent purely on the erroneous assumption that Russia and China are now our 'friends' in perpetuity. In February this year than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and the US are heading for a new “cold war” (source: Sunday Times) I don't think that a woman as intelligent as Shirley Willaims should be deliberately playing the Pollyanna of international politics in order to score party political points. At best it's dishonest, at worst it's dangerous. -
- Recommend? (2)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
xenium1
20 Jun 2010, 10:35PM@ MAMAnd a place at the Top Table is reason enough to keep them. Britain should be at the Top Table.
Sheer outdated, jingoistic, British imperialist thinking. Why should Britain be at the top table? Why? A medium-sized, has-been country has no right to be sitting at any top table, whatever that means. And, if the top table means just waiting for that moment when we can vaporise innocent foreigners, then count me out. Oh, & what PeteSaman has just said... -
- Recommend? (11)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:38PM
There are certain non nuclear countries that have a full nuclear deterrent in bits ready to be assembled in less than two weeks.
No there isn't.Far better to keep it in mothballs should the need arise, than waste billions patrolling the seas for nothing.
If it is in mothballs, then where's the deterrent? Your country gets nuked along with your nukes in mothballs because the other country knows you dont have a detterent. The whole idea of a continous at sea deterrent is that any foe KNOWS that even if they fancied turning your nation to crispy bacon, that we have a sub that can retaliate. The whole purpose of Trident is DETERRENT. You either have the deterrent or you don't which is certainly an argument, but you don't decide to only have the deterrent during the week and have the weekend off because then you don't have a deterrent!! -
- Recommend? (4)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:38PMoperationjulie
There are certain non nuclear countries that have a full nuclear deterrent in bits ready to be assembled in less than two weeks. Far better to keep it in mothballs should the need arise, than waste billions patrolling the seas for nothing.
Yes. Very handy if the Soviet Union or some other power chose to launch a nuclear strike giving you 45 minutes warning. Now the Soviet Union is gone but other states capable of such things have not.having said that, vapourising entire cities is not the way a civilised nation should behave.
Really? So we ought to be aiming at our enemies' nuclear and conventional weapons then? We have about 160 nuclear weapons. The Russians have over 3,000. So if we want to deter the Russians we would need to massively expand our nuclear weapon stockpile. 160 is enough to destroy their cities, but nowhere near enough to dent their weapon inventories. What is more, if they strike first, those weapons will not be there to fire at. So we would need to strike first or at least "launch on warning" where we attack them the second they show signs that they want to attack us - but before they actual do. This is what you call civilised? sneekyboyBuy an island off the coast and put 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles on it. Then patrol the waters with conventional navy and let the airforce defend the site. No new and costly subs, running costs or problems with 24/7/365 deterrence.
Submarines are not costly. No one is calling for new ones either. We could do this, but we would be exposed to a first strike. Such a site could be hit and we would be defenseless.Keep 1 sub on alert in the docks, to sail if we have heightened tensions with someone it can be put to sea.
As long as we are not attacked first. By surprise. sneekyboyWelcome to the 21st Century, warfare by proxy, ciber war and breaking down your opposition by flooding them with drugs and counterfeit money a la North Korea and the Super Dollars.
As long as we have nuclear weapons, yes. MartynInEuropeI have great respect for you, as one of Britain's intellectual free-thinkers, kind-hearted veterans and as a strong political long-distance runner, but I do find the following a little hard to swallow:
Yeah. Maybe I better not say what I have just deleted.In my humble opinion, nuclear weapons are less effective against terrorists, because ... they are not effective against terrorists at all.
Maybe we're just not using them right. MartynInEuropeMAM, you know a bloke with a special on for discount nuclear weapons, one careful owner, never out of the silo, must see?
Well there is this guy down the pub ..... But he won't be needed. As nuclear weapons are cheap. No new design work. We have all the parts we need apart from some tritium which is fairly cheap. The Americans carry the cost of designing the missiles. Which is precisely why Britain spent so much on them in the 1950s. -
- Recommend? (2)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
AGreenup
20 Jun 2010, 10:38PMYou can't have half a deterrent. A submarine at sea is undetectable and could be anywhere. It is sufficiently armed to destroy entirely any enemy. That's why the deterrent is 'strategic'. A system that is not comprehensive, or can be pinned down to a particular place and time, is not strategic as an enemy can be aware of when it's not available or destroy it in a pre-emptive strike. This would be a ‘tactical’ rather than a strategic weapon. Shirley Williams is assuming we can rationalise and predict the actions of present and future enemies. We can not. If affordable we should proceed with a submarine based strategic deterrent. The most expensive possible outcome is war. Deterring war is not a cost, it is a saving. -
- Recommend? (6)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
shinsei
20 Jun 2010, 10:39PMWhat's the difference between cutting Trident and all the other "nasty" and "brutish" cuts that are being opposed by 95% of CiFers today ? Surely Trident cuts means sacking submariners, engineers, and support staff. The closure of naval shipyards and parts of the defence and heavy engineering industry. Local communities in places like Rosyth and Barrow hit by job losses in their main employers. Trident is estimated to cost £4.5bn a year. That's £4.5bn spent in the UK economy. -
- Recommend? (3)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:40PM"TAKOMA PARK, Maryland (CNN) -- Radioactive fallout from 1950s above-ground nuclear weapons testing spread farther than researchers previously realized and most increased cancer rates in the United States, according to a scientific report. "Any person living in the contiguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout, and all organs and tissues of the body have received some radiation exposure," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute said in a progress report prepared for Congress. The report was reviewed by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. " etc etc etc
-
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:45PMMoveAnyMountain
20 Jun 2010, 10:38PM .... Yes. Very handy if the Soviet Union or some other power chose to launch a nuclear strike giving you 45 minutes warning. Now the Soviet Union is gone but other states capable of such things have not.
Hear this imperialist English! We are going to nuke you, at half-time! No injury time. Be prepared! Okay, tell Rooney to throw the game. -
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:48PMThe only rational rationalisation of Trident is sharing the deterrent with allies. One sub permanently at sea ought to be good enough for all NATO countries. It's not like Trident is an independent deterrent anyway; everyone knows it's US tech and can't be fired without their OK.
-
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:50PMCan't we arrange a sale or return deal?
-
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:52PM@ xenium1
Sheer outdated, jingoistic, British imperialist thinking. Why should Britain be at the top table? Why? A medium-sized, has-been country has no right to be sitting at any top table, whatever that means.
This attitude amazes me (though it shouldn't really given this is the Guardian) - lets get things straight. EVERY country in the world seeks power and influence over world affairs - EVERY country. Every country wants to shape world events else it gets shaped by them. And just for the record. Depending on exchange rates this counry has the 6th-8th largest economy in the world, is one of only 5 countries with a veto on the UNSC, a member of the G8, G20, NATO and a nuclear power Not many more important countries in the world. The UK is not a superpower (only the US is) but it is still a global player with influence few other countries have. This doesn't mean we are 'imperial jingoists' by any means - we just hold cards that not every country does. It seems some in this country love to self-flagellate and want to be Belgium! -
-
VforVintage
20 Jun 2010, 10:54PMI have never been keen on politicians who survive a long time, especially with different parties, nor with ones that seem to have been on Question Time for decades. It shows a certain cunning and an ability to hang on tightly to a greasy pole, something most humans find hard to do. As for nuclear weapons, why on earth do we need so many? I think about ten would do all we needed for revenge, and I imagine the French , the Americans and Israel would be on our side, and they would be firing theirs along side ours. Also I don't like the way the 'establishment' has somehow wangled it so that we can argue over foxes, smoking, drink driving giving the poor less, but NUCLEAR bombs or power plants are not open for discussion, and even though we discuss it on threads like this, it is completely out of our hands. If push comes to shove, we will not be told or warned about their use, so it will be too late to march down Westminster. The ConDems , in a pact with the devil, are set against any discussion, and the Labour party are terrified of the right-wing press, and pretend the weapon doesn't really exist and that they are just part of a global game,' We will never use them anyway.'is what they repeatedly tell us. -
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:54PMMore to the point, if the British Bulldog is in intensive care, because it's vital economic organs have been compromised, what's the point in transplanting a bigger willy and all teh cost that this entails?
-
-
antipodean1
20 Jun 2010, 10:55PMGood article Shirley, and while its under discussion, why not do a deal with our nice neighbours - the French, so as to keep a continuous at sea deterrent but at a much cheaper price? Or is the Hundred Year war still too fresh in our minds. And Mr Mountain, sorry to inform you that fewer weapons are cheaper than more weapons; hopefully thats not too controversial a claim?We need to keep the nuclear option
Urm actually Shirley is not really debating that point.
And where does this one come from?then we would have to spend more on conventional forces to replace that lost capacity.
Absolute rubbish - no we wouldnt. We could just spend less on weapons and more on people. In fact we could do whatever we liked with the money saved.
We could spend it on education or aid or hospitals or even just lower our debt a bit -
- @rd232
everyone knows it's US tech and can't be fired without their OK.
Straight out of the CND propaganda manual and utter rubbish. We make the warheads too by the way.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/2005/07/BritainsNuclearArsenalControl.htm -
- Recommend? (4)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:57PM
Absolute rubbish - no we wouldnt. We could just spend less on weapons and more on people. In fact we could do whatever we liked with the money saved.
Ah yes, the good old hospitals straw man!
We could spend it on education or aid or hospitals or even just lower our debt a bit.
- 20 Jun 2010, 10:59PMAdvanceBritannia
20 Jun 2010, 10:30PM .... The world in 20 years may well see a nuclear arms race in the middle east if Iran aqcuires the bomb. I don't know about others, but I quite like living in a country that isn't faced with nuclear blackmail.
Don't worry, our best democratic friend in the ME has loads nuclear weapons. We'll be safe.
-
HammondOrganB3
20 Jun 2010, 11:01PMMoveAnyMountainNuclear weapons are not expensive. That is why Britain embraced them in the 1950s. They are cheap. And a place at the Top Table is reason enough to keep them. Britain should be at the Top Table.
In that case, can you kindly forward the 100 billion required to replace Trident to the treasury? No? Oh, you want to spent my money to keep abstract, top-table Viagraish nonsense. -
- Recommend? (3)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:07PMI'm begining to think that maybe Conspiracy Grandma has a point.
-
- Recommend? (1)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
BeStill
20 Jun 2010, 11:07PMThe UK's contribution to the nuclear weapons debate, strongly led by Brown, has been impressive and appreciated internationally. What nonsense. The nuclear signatories to the NNPT have always been consummate hypocrites. Why not simply allow nukes for all, then all can have an equal right to this "debate" that you talk about? I have no problem with "rogue states" having access to decent quality weaponry; have always wished the Palestinians had access to F16s - or similar. I've never, ever, understood how access to state of the art weaponry automatically defines one as "non-terrorist". "Rogue states" took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroyed areas of the Pacific with their testing, sank the Rainbow Warrior, trashed Nevada. Let's give state of the art nuke technology to Korea, Iran, Pakistan and then let us have a debate. A full, informed, equal debate that owes nothing to ageing (semi) ideologues who believe that middle class western values allow some sort of moral right to the possession of WMDs. You want preferential access to the debate, Shirley, because it keeps you safe. Fine - stay safe; we all seek safety. Just try not to suggest that your desire for safety has any greater moral validity than the desire for safety of those whose food bill can never match your sherry bill. -
- Recommend? (3)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
raymonddelauney
20 Jun 2010, 11:09PMMoveAnyMountain We have about 160 nuclear weapons. The Russians have over 3,000. So if we want to deter the Russians we would need to massively expand our nuclear weapon stockpile. 160 is enough to destroy their cities, but nowhere near enough to dent their weapon inventories. What is more, if they strike first, those weapons will not be there to fire at. So we would need to strike first or at least "launch on warning" where we attack them the second they show signs that they want to attack us - but before they actual do.
There's a Strangelovesque theme that emerges when posters here start shuffling the cruet set around the dining room table as if NATO Strategic Command is missing a key planner, rather than just another Keyboard Colonel sounding off. We go around lecturing countries like Iran for building a civil nuclear power programme - when we turn blind eyes to rogue nuclear nations such as Pakistan, India and Israel. -
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:10PMSurprised no-one has mentioned that Shirley Williams's party colleagues recently stood for election under a manifesto pledging scrapping of Trident. A few weeks later, she is saying: "Trident is really expensive and useless, but so, erm, maybe we should think about reducing our numbers a little some time and train lots of inspectors to stop other countries from getting them."Shoddy.
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:13PMAllyF:
20 Jun 2010, 11:10PM Surprised no-one has mentioned that Shirley Williams's party colleagues recently stood for election under a manifesto pledging scrapping of Trident.
Good point (as always). Yet, another elephantine pledge that we are supposed to ignore, for the sack of Tory party unity. "Shoddy" indeed.
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:16PM@ Martyn
Don't worry, our best democratic friend in the ME has loads nuclear weapons. We'll be safe.
I'd rather my country wasn't beholden on someone elses finger on the trigger eh? @ HammondorganB3In that case, can you kindly forward the 100 billion required to replace Trident to the treasury? No?
The UK economy is worth over $2 trillion per year. A portion of that goes to defence. We can afford it. Lets not play schoolboy mathematics here - its about £12bn upfront for subs and about £1.5bn per year for 25 years at most.
Perfectly affordable. If it was £100bn upfront you'd have a point.Oh, you want to spent my money to keep abstract, top-table Viagraish nonsense.
Your money isn't going to be much help when your nation is turned into a glass car park.
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:17PMraymonddelauney:
20 Jun 2010, 11:09PM
Well, decent chaps just can't let any of those non-Empire chaps have that sort of thing, you know, rather defeats the purpose of having a good chaps club in the first place. Moreover - good Lord - if we started letting those chaps have their way everytime they wanted to do something, like provide more plebs with electric, where would it all end?
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:19PM@ AllyF
Surprised no-one has mentioned that Shirley Williams's party colleagues recently stood for election under a manifesto pledging scrapping of Trident.
They didn't stand for election pledging to scrap Trident at all. They said they would not go ahead with its successor program.
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:20PMAdvanceBritannia:
20 Jun 2010, 11:19PM
I think we all know what AllyF meant.
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:23PMAdvanceBritannia
20 Jun 2010, 11:16PM @ Martyn Don't worry, our best democratic friend in the ME has loads nuclear weapons. We'll be safe. I'd rather my country wasn't beholden on someone elses finger on the trigger eh?
But, in the event of the use of nuclear weapons we would have to rely on others. If the UK launched a nuclear strike, and Uncle Sam said, "nothing to do with us", do you think that maybe we would expect some grief, without allies stepping up to the plate?
-
mobi
20 Jun 2010, 11:24PMWhat is nuclear deterrent defending us from? Our country is actually not vulnerable to either nuclear or conventional but it is vulnerable to commercial invasion. Most of our infrastructure and services are owned and controlled by foreign countries...utility power companies, banks, water, oil&gas etc etc. The real danger is from within!
-
eileenphoto
20 Jun 2010, 11:28PMNuclear weapons are not going away, people with common sense have to keep on top of the other guy, whilst trying to diminish availability, tough challenge.
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:28PMUnscrupulous market manipulators have caused more financial and social damage than any terrorist or conventional weapon attack. Can Trident be used to sort those feckers out?
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:33PM@ Martyn
But, in the event of the use of nuclear weapons we would have to rely on others. If the UK launched a nuclear strike, and Uncle Sam said, "nothing to do with us", do you think that maybe we would expect some grief, without allies stepping up to the plate?
The UK doesn't have first strike tactical weapons. We have a second strike deterrent. We only launch ours after we have been attacked. -
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:34PM@ mobi
Our country is actually not vulnerable to either nuclear or conventional but it is vulnerable to commercial invasion.
Ah, so thats what the invisible deflector shield is that surrounds the UK!
- 20 Jun 2010, 11:37PMAdvanceBritannia: 20 Jun 2010, 11:33PM .... The UK doesn't have first strike tactical weapons. We have a second strike deterrent. We only launch ours after we have been attacked. I am sure that, in least in theory, you are right. However, given the dubious nature of the liberation of Iraq, I do have some concerns.
-
lightacandle
20 Jun 2010, 11:37PM"The agreement between the partners in the UK's new coalition government states that Britain's nuclear deterrent will be maintained, that its renewal will be scrutinised to ensure value for money, and that the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives" Good for you - carry on - I'm sure they're all ears. "For the UK, the first stage could be a reduction in the number of Trident-carrying submarines from four to three. Before he left office, Gordon Brown was considering such a step".Oh really, more in line with your way of thinking than those Conservatives but that doesn't really mean anything these days does it? Sorry to have a go - but I have to vent my frustration over the coalition deal your party leader did with the Tories somehow.
23 Apr 2009:
China gives first view of new nuclear submarines at international fleet review to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army navy in Qingdao, Chin 
No comments:
Post a Comment