The return of politics' 'N' word
The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary.
Tonight, Nick Clegg uses those arguments to become the first major party leader to argue that Trident should be scrapped at the end of its lifetime.
Every hour of every day, one of four submarines able to launch 16 Trident nuclear missiles is on patrol somewhere in the world.
Ministers warn they'll be obsolete by 2024 unless the country spends £20bn upgrading the system.
Under Sir Menzies Campbell's leadership, the Lib Dems argued that that decision could be postponed.
Now his successor insists that, given the squeeze on public spending, a "like for like replacement" is out of the question.
He argues that Britain's aim should be to scrap its nuclear weapons as part of a multilateral disarmament deal.
Meantime, Mr Clegg has asked Sir Menzies to look at cheaper alternative systems which, he concedes, will be less of a deterrent.
Rather curiously Nick Clegg was elected Lib Dem leader two years ago after clashing with his opponent Chris Huhne over his call for Trident to be scrapped - a policy he then warned was "in my view possibly illegal, costly and unstable".
Tonight, the Lib Dem leader told me that he had " changed my mind".
Not since the 1980s has an argument about nuclear weapons divided the major political parties. Not since then has it featured at an election.
Tonight it is clear that nuclear politics is back.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~06~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
£20 billion is a small insurance policy relative to the £1.5 trillion economy that it pays for. Besides, the money is not all due at once but spread out over many years into the future. Building or upgrading subs will keep many skilled workers in a job.
Nick Clegg has shown he is not capable of leading the country with his short-term views. Who knows the nature of the world in 10 - 20 years?
Complain about this comment
And about time too.
Complain about this comment
If you want a Deterrent, then the only way of doing it is via the Trident Missile. There is no other way of providing a deterrent that it is virtually impossible to compromise. The question that the Nick Clegg needs to answer is whether we want a deterrent. If we do, then we have to be prepared to pay the price. We must bear in mind that the world is going to get a lot more insecure. Any action that we take in relinquishing Nuclear Weapons will have no affect on the majority of regimes who seek them. We need realism not idealism.
Complain about this comment
It would be wonderful if we didn't need Trident. However, the cold facts are that we do. We are relatively safe as a nation, for the heinously barbaric yet genuine reason that we could, if we had to, blow anybody who threatened us to Jupiter.
In this dangerous and volatile global political climate, that is not something that we should forget.
Of course, Clegg's multilateral disarmament deal sounds just lovely, and he's dead right, we should indeed be targetting less, not more, nuclear warheads on the face of the planet. However, we can do that without weakening ourselves.
It's arrogant, and I'm leaving myself open to torrents of abuse here, but I can't help but think that we should lead any such multilateral disarmament deal from the rear - we make sure everyone else has actually disarmed before we do. Lets face it, whether some people like it or not, there's no denying we can be trusted with trident. Can even the most ardent supporter of equality on nuclear affairs tell me that they're comfortable with North Korea having nuclear capabilities?
Of course they can't.
Strive to make nuclear warfare a feature of the past? Yes, of course.
Maintain our own nuclear powers until it is genuinely a thing of the past? Equally important.
Complain about this comment
It is curious that the LibDems want nuclear weapons at all. Were nuclear weapons to actually be used, they would effectively unleash genocide. Do the LibDems really think that Britain's security should be underpinned by the threat of genocide being unleashed on anyone who attempts to breach it?
Complain about this comment
As one who served for 20 years in the armed forces, including during the height of the Cold War, having a nuclear capability has always seemed to me to be the right thing for the United Kingdom.
Nowadays, however, I'm not convinced. I think that the risk of nuclear warfare remains; indeed, that risk may be greater now than it has ever been. But the UK is a shadow of its former self, economically and politically. For decades our political elite have been (badly) managing the decline of the UK as a serious international player. Over the last 12 years in particular, the UK's military institutions and capability have been trashed by Labour in Government.
The sad and simple fact is that we are a nation on the road to bankruptcy, led by a dishonest and incompetent Government, unchallenged by an equally incompetent and impotent parliament. Any thought of spending money on fantastically expensive weapon systems like Trident whilst meantime our troops are sent into battle lacking the most basic military equipment would be madness. This is the reality of the UK's financial mess.
Such decisions will soon be ripping into all quarters of our public spending as we discover that very little will be affordable to the public purse in the coming decade or two; our debt-laden mantra will be default, inflate or austerity. Ditching Trident will be a first-order austerity measure ... and we'd be bonkers to do anything else.
Complain about this comment
The Swiss seem to get by with with just a small pocket army knife!!!
Complain about this comment
Let the tax havens pay for it. If the Pope's figures are right, then one year's tax saving can pay for our Trident project 10 times over.
Complain about this comment
"Tonight it is clear that nuclear politics is back"
I must look up the definition of 'blog'. Is this not a bit sensationalist?
Complain about this comment
Ah, the good old days..
Hugh Gaitskill's "..fight and fight again to save the Party (he) loved..", Mr Austin's 'CND' logo, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Bank Holiday marches on Aldermarston and Porton Down, Nevil Shute's 'On The Beach', Cuba-Castro-Khruschev-Kennedy, Michael Foot, Kubrick's 'Dr Strangelove', Salt 1 and 2, Monsignor Kent, BBC's 'Threads' and Nuclear Winter, the Greenham Common anti-cruise missile ladies...
It's all such well intentioned-nostalgia.
The UK takes up Nuclear Disarmament whilst USA, Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran retain or develop them and are soon followed by the likes of Syria, South Africa, Brazil, Libya and some crack-pot terrorist groups.
Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems!
Oh dear, oh dear!
Kamikazi-Karaoke night at the 'Ban The Bomb' UK branch, was it?
Complain about this comment
"Nuclear" is an anagram of "unclear".
Why should we be concerned that Nick Clegg has "changed his mind"? Perhaps he's just changed the arrangement of the letters, on the offchance that he might hit upon a populist pitch.
This man doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
"Clegg". It's almost Dickensian: clinging on, sucking the lifeblood from real, living things...
What's he for?
Complain about this comment
Can somebody explain how a nuke is obsolete fairly shortly. Surely a nuke remains a nuke. How is this obsolete nukes obliteration in action bettered. If youre nuked your nuked surely. Just what is the improvement that is being sought with a better nuke, more fuel efficiency, greener, cheaper, better, well what. An AK47 was designed in 1940s. It still appears effective. So can somebody explain why Trident needs replacement, other than the salesman of the replacement.
Complain about this comment
An insurance policy! Against what? We can't launch anything without the say of the US, even if we wanted to - they maintain all the targeting systems. So what is the point?
Complain about this comment
Trident has always been of doubtful use as a deterrent and unpopular with those who are unfortunate enough to live near its base. It never made sense to finance and accommodate it. It has come to the end of its useful life (if it ever was useful). Get rid of it. Roll on multilateral disarmament and a more civilised world.
Complain about this comment
good call, hats off to Clegg ... might swing a few votes too
Complain about this comment
In the days of the cold war, the argument for having a nuclear deterrent was to 'deter' the Russians from attacking the West. Britain could not hope to match the Soviets with conventional weapons, so the nuclear deterrent was considered a plausible way to 'beef up' the defense capability.
In reality, the likelihood of a Russian attack on the West was probably very small - despite Czechoslovakia.
But whatever the rights and wrongs of the cold war, that is effectively over. There is now a new threat to the West, but it doesn't exist in a single country. The threat of terrorism can come from anywhere.
Even if Britain replaced Trident, where should the new missiles be aimed? North Korea might indeed be a threat - but are they likely to launch an attack?
A far greater threat in my view is Iran, particularly if Ahmadinejad remains in office. A British nuclear capability would not deter him or the terrorists he supports.
It is clear that our conventional forces, Army, Navy and Air Force are woefully overstretched and under-funded. In these circumstances, updating a nuclear missile system which could never be used (and wasn't a deterrent) is a total waste of money.
Apart from the economics, there is also a strong moral argument for getting rid of nuclear weapons. If Britain wants other nations to become (or remain) non-nuclear, then it should lead by example.
Trident should now be scrapped.
Complain about this comment
The first atomic bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, was codenamed "Little Boy". The aircraft was the "Enola Gay".
Funny how I recollected that when I read about Nick Clegg's latest musings on behalf of the Liberal Democrats...
Complain about this comment
Just another one who blows which ever way the wind blows in hope of scoring a point or two
Nuclear weapons have become a necessary evil since the cold war and too many dodgy states have since got there hands on them and if push came to shove could we rely on our friends to come to our aid
Well I for one would not want to rely on them as they have proven in the pasted that they will have to wait till they are attracted history tells us that we can not rely on them
Therefore we have to have our own Nuclear weapons so if it came to it we could do the job ourselves
Complain about this comment
"In my view, (Nick Clegg is) illegal, costly and unstable."
But he doesn't matter, so who cares?
Complain about this comment
I've "changed my mind". Nick Clegg is not worth a posting. Good night.
Complain about this comment
Cruise missile laden submarines with variable war heads, from Nuclear to conventional, is all that's required. The Trident multi-warhead Armageddon device was for a different type of warfare MAD!
Complain about this comment
boabycat: "Who knows the nature of the world in 10 - 20 years?"
I think it's safe to say that in 10-20 years, there will still be no conceivable use - and certainly no legal use - for our WMDs. But if you really think that the nature of the world in 10-20 years' time will be so appalling that the obliteration of up to 16 cities (plus the almost inevitable counter-strikes) is seen as a remotely reasonable proposition, then why wait for Trident renewal? Use them now, save money and give another species a turn.
BTW, what is our nuclear deterrent deterring at the moment?
Complain about this comment
#1 - boabycat
"Who knows the nature of the world in 10 - 20 years?"
Hopefully not degenerated to the degree that anyone would contemplate laying waste to thousands of square miles and killing tens of thousands of people at the press of a button. You point about jobs is well made but would they not be better employed building and maintaining something we might actually need? Aircraft carriers for instance.
Complain about this comment
In this crazy world of ours mutually assured destruction in order to keep the peace is a neat little paradox to short circuit our own darker side.
Nuclear weapons have been incredibly succesful in maintaining a greater world peace and the dividends that brings. Without nuclear weapons millions more would have died in the violence of war for sure, thy are the only things that kept Russia out of the rest of Europe after WW2.
I am a fan of nuclear weapons, their power forces us to act responsibly, oddly, to get rid of them means we dont trust ourselves not to use them anymore, which probably means someone will, even if they dont others could see it as a weakness to take advantage of which may lead to alot more 'low level' conflict.
What strange creatures we are.
Jericoa
Complain about this comment
Same old flip flop Liberals. Thats why they will never form a Government or a decent opposition (not that we have a decent opposition at the moment with call me Dave in charge)
The skills these projects promote and protect are Britains future along with its defence, but we all know that our politicians want to join the even more lucrative gravy train of Europe (for them) that they couldnt care less about the defence of this country and the British people.
Is it any wonder voters are defecting to other alternative parties when our established parties do not even accept the voters wishes.
Another useless Liberal leader who will drift the party along for the ride for another few years and milk the expenses on the way.
Complain about this comment
"The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary."
"He argues that Britain's aim should be to scrap its nuclear weapons as part of a multilateral disarmament deal."
Well know that everyone knows we can't afford it, why would they do a deal?
Complain about this comment
At least someone at Westminster is talking sense.
Trident is a complete waste of money as it is extremely unlikely to ever be used. It would be better to spend that money on equipment for ground troops, who are more likely to be put into action than some apocalyptic missile system, and on the intelligent services, who tell us they are underfunded and therefore can't keep tract on as many home-grown terrorists (who are a real threat) as they would like.
If Trident was ever used we'd be just as well all shooting ourselves in the head as it would be the end of Britain and the end of the world!!!
Complain about this comment
We can't afford it and if Scotland votes for independence we have nowhere suitable to keep it.
The money could be better spent on conventional weapons, like armoured personnel carriers - but I would still like us to have an appropriate nuclear deterrent.
Complain about this comment
Well done Nick Clegg! As to comment no.1, well the problem with this kind of "insurance" is that when someone had a big club to defend themselves, everyone else wants one! We need to take the lead on this in the the world and start to reduce our nuclear defences. Part of the money should of course go on making sure our troops have proper equipment in Afghanistan. The $64,000 question is though, why have we never had a referendum on having a nuclear arsenal? Or the Lisbon treaty? Or changing our voting system?? Why - because it suits those in charge not to let us!! I vote for a TRIPLE referendum on these key issues. It will help to restore the democratic mandate the politicians have stripped us of. Why not PR? Because it isn't in the interests of Labour or the Tories. The sooner the country gets to grips with the fact that these 2 parties have been perpetuating their own well being above what serves the people, the better. Triple Referendum now!!!
Complain about this comment
here we go again..
'it's a deterrent'
'it's a waste of money'
My opinion - what do people actually expect us to do with them? we actually start firing nukes then the world is probably toast, do other nations really pay attention because we might fire one, or is it because of the massive military might of the US?
As for the idea that they keep us safe - what keeps Germany and Japan safe?
Complain about this comment
#3 catainsnorko
"If you want a Deterrent, then the only way of doing it is via the Trident Missile."
What if you are facing an opponent who has gained access to, say, Pakistans nuclear arsenal and intends to unleash a weapon converted to a suitcase bomb technology?
Wouldn't a more limited and potentially bunker buster type of weapon be more useful? It would still need to be decisive and absolute but if it kept contamination in the ground less innocents would die.
The point is the Cold War is over and the enemies we have do not conform to type.
Complain about this comment
The question to be answered in terms of a future nuclear deterrent is - just who (assuming they are even interested in listening) are we trying to deter from doing what to whom - and how? In the old days the answer was clear, the strategy tight. Now.....?
A new or upgraded Trident is just the 'how.' When someone can clearly answer for me the rest of the question, I might accept the need for upgrading the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. Until then, Im with Nick Clegg (and possibly even David Davis too, by the sound of it).
Not just Trident, but the whole concept of an independent UK nuclear deterrent became obsolete years ago. What we have now in Trident is a key to help with unlocking the process of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Lets make use of it over the next 15 years to do just that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Checking my Invader dictionary for the word Clegg I found the following definition: -
Clegg is a matted clump of faecal caked wool attached to a sheeps bottom.
I am not quite sure how this affects either politics or nuclear weapons, but it is still most revealing.
In a nuclear sense: -
I think that Nick the Clegg should think twice about the next maniac he encounters with a rocket in his pocket.
Maniacs with rockets in their pockets are always pleased to see you.
Whoever is in power next needs to ensure that they have a bigger rocket in their pocket.
In this case size truly matters.
But it is equally true that you need to know how to use it and where to point it.
Complain about this comment
I am saddened that so many contributors who usually have differing,contoversial but understandable stances on many of the current situations, seem to get a "red mist" blinding them when it comes to "us" having a big (bigger) stick with which to anihilate the world.
As the growth industry in atomic weapons is now in the "nutter" counties does anyone think they care if we have one too?
Yeah lets spend 20bn so if any of them are left alive after they have wiped us out, our undersea forces can wipe them out too. And those forces can then choose to die under the sea or surface and die of radiation.
Oh what a good game.
Complain about this comment
Tonight it is clear that nuclear politics is back.
Only if you set the news agenda Nick. Lib Dems have no chance of power, so they are only ever a sideshow for when you either have nothing to report - or have nothing that you want to report.
Complain about this comment
13. At 11:24pm on 16 Jun 2009, glanafon wrote:
Sell by date is about reliability.
Guidance systems improve and need to be incorporated into new designs to maintain the effectiveness of the device.
The delivery system and housing degrades over time.
I hope this answers the question.
Complain about this comment
31. At 00:02am on 17 Jun 2009, tarquin
The concept of deterrents and most detergents is mutually assured destruction.
You shoot your load and the enemy shoots theirs.
Its the lose - lose concept.
Democratic governments are deemed to be reliable enough to have deterrents unilaterally as a precaution against rogue states.
The George Bush Junior era (Code named - Bed time for Bonzo)is the obvious exception.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm with glanafon here and sorry Invader-Zim I don't buy the obsolesence argument in this case. In fact I'll go further - why did we ever get rid of "Polaris"? A UK "in-house" system leading to genuine UK based jobs rather than a load of technicians to tinker with some Yank contraption (and you know how well they tend to work - Three Mile Island / the space shuttle)
OK, yes guidance systems, software, and any mechanical components need updating and replacing at intervals - but this is still a lot cheaper and affordable for a struggling economy than the gazillions of dollars on wholesale replacement.
And yes we should be looking at having a less destructive system as hopefully the first "baby steps" on the way to global disarmament (but not while regimes like North Korea, Iran etc have access to similar capabilities).
Complain about this comment
39
I think we should get rid of them. Whats the point? I think we should fire them in the direction of urandus. That'll stop you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thank you moderator. I will not trouble you with any further postings.
CA55ANDRA, OUT.
Complain about this comment
Trident (or it's replacement) is a complete waste of money - it could never actually be used. The real threat we face is from terrorists, not based in any particular country. For a suicide bomber, a nuclear missile is not a deterrent.
The money could be better spent beefing up our overstretched, underfunded conventional forces.
The other problem is that foreign policy, including defense, is gradually being taken over by the EU.
The Times reports that Cameron would not oppose Blair becoming President of Europe.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6515173.ece
Cameron should not only vigorously oppose Blair playing any role in the EU, he should also oppose the very existence of an EU 'President'.
Complain about this comment
O God not this again!!
"Its not really ours; we have to ask America's permission to do anything with it since they controll the hardware. Just one more example of this impatant, useless government's snivalling sycophancy toward our masters/"cousins" those selfish, inconsiderit yanks...etc, etc, etc."
For my view, do whatever you want...keep it, upgrade it or scrap it, just sever any and all links with us regarding "permission" or any sort of dictation to you on how and when to use it should you choose to retain it. And above all else, I implore you, make it known to your politicions, whatever it takes, that you want, no, need, them to see your iconic, historicly rich nation as an independent, free thinking one who doesn't need to do any bidding of the Americans unless its leaders truely, honestly, and under not even the perception of pressure from us feel that what is being considered is honestly the right thing to do in the interests of your country and noone else's!
The one thing as an American that I deplore more than anything else other than being embarrissed at my own president's actions in my name, is the unfavorable views held by some of my country's allies' citizenry toward my country.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip #10: '"The UK takes up Nuclear Disarmament whilst USA, Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran retain or develop them and are soon followed by the likes of Syria, South Africa, Brazil, Libya and some crack-pot terrorist groups."
Actually, when Obama visited Europe for the G20 summett, he ade peach n Prague, in which he pashonetly and vigarously called for the mutual reduction, and aultamit elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. So while the US may be retaining them for now, it is still reducing them drasticly, and hopefully one day will reduce them to nothing.
Besides, even if we were increasing our nuclear weapons capability, are the US, France, Brazil, and India (barring a potencial conflict with Pakistan) all that terible of nations? Are we all that untrustworthy? I don't necessarily think we're "crack pot terrorist groups," do you?
Complain about this comment
york1900 #19: '"Nuclear weapons have become a necessary evil since the cold war and too many dodgy states have since got there hands on them and if push came to shove could we rely on our friends to come to our aid
Well I for one would not want to rely on them as they have proven in the past that they will have to wait till they are attracted history tells us that we can not rely on them
Therefore we have to have our own Nuclear weapons so if it came to it we could do the job ourselves."
Yeah, because decisions of international importance are all as simple and cut and dry as you suggest aren't they? The world is all black and white isn't it? At the risk of opening a pandorrus box, "in the past" "history has proven" that you so-called "cannot rely on your friends" because your friends have had to take into account other factors aside from that of whether they wanted to help out a friend in need or not. Domestic opinion, political and military readiness, and whether or not a nation has the capability and will power to cary out whatever it is that is being requested of it by a friend are but a few that come to mind.
So I implore you, before you hasen to lament pashonetly that you have no friends in the world, to please do try to put yourself in the shews of the leader or the average citizen of the nation(S) who's help you are bitter about not receiving now, or who's help you are bitter about not having gotten in the past. Please?
Complain about this comment
tarquin #31: '"do other nations really pay attention because we might fire one, or is it because of the massive military might of the US?"
Good point. I honestly think its a little of both. Which brings me back to my earlier point at #49 to 'york1900. Keep it or dispose of it, as members of NATO, the US and every other member is required to come to your aid should you find yourselves under attack anyway. So really I don't see any affects on your defence capabilities, positive or negative, if you were to scrap Tridant. If this was the 1920s that would be one thing. But the necessary international institutions are in place now. The west especially has built up pretty strong, stirdy alliances on which to rely. So I don't think nuclear deterants
are as imparitive as they once were.
"As for the idea that they keep us safe - what keeps Germany and Japan safe?"
While we have if not single handedly done so in the past, and while we certainly have a huge hand in doing so now, I hope that this will soon change. Germany, Japan, and the whole of Europe can protect themselves now. This isn't the 1950s. We need to let them go and trust them. Of course everyone knows that if they need us all they have to do is call, but if the US is to successfully fight the accusations of being an imperial power, than what better way than that of shutting down our military bases in these countries and heading home, and trusting our friends in their own defence for once?
The-Real-Truth #37: What makes you believe that the Liberal Democrats will never see power? I'm curious. Aren't they a major party? If enough people vote for them at any given general election, won't they win just like any other party? Will you please explain?
Complain about this comment
#6 Moraymint,
Sir, like you in the Cold War for me having a nuclear deterrent was a no brainer, the world was not a safe place and I believed in deterrence. I speak as a chap who studied the Cuban Missile Crisis in some depth. Today, like you, I am far from convinced. I agree how this Government has trashed our defence capability. The Prime Minister actually hates anything to do with defence, hence only visiting the MoD once in all his years in Government. He goes to France to celebrate the 65 anniversary of D-Day but clearly looks uncomfortable. I wonder why he does it? He should just admit that his own agenda is to quietly [after all the Stealth Taxes where the same; income redistribution by any other name] and come out with the fact he would prefer no Royal Navy at all. That is what he believes. Problem is he knows he cannot be honest with the population about pretty much anything; other than a Tory Government would bring chaos in his mindset [by that I take it that chaos means all his pet projects and social mobility would go away and his legacy would be lost]. No, Prime Minister you have indeed left us a legacy - and our Grand Children will be paying for it. Cheers.
Now please go, and let the people have an election.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Which of the current political leaders - Cameron, Clegg or Mandelson - would actually have the bottle to order the launch of a nuclear missile? What possible scale of attack on us would provoke them to respond?
Cameron and Clegg simply don't have the spine, and dither and dissemble and spin while we lost city after city. Mandelson would let every inch of the UK be turned to radioactive slag as long as his home town, Brussels, wasn't touched.
We don't need a tougher deterrent, we need tougher leaders.
Complain about this comment
typical talk from a party that has no idea and would gladly sell this country out to the highest bidder.
scrapping our nuclear deffence would lower our standing to easy target and cause this countries population more grief.
may be having to pay a few billion for piece of mind is no bad thing.
but the whole military needs review and repaired where damaged our defence is not just nuclear submarines.
Complain about this comment
My home has never been burgled, so should I have my
burgalar alarm removed!
Complain about this comment
In a world revolving round the internet (which is catching on, and some now see merit in enhancing with lots more of other folks' money), with folk getting their time-poor news fixes from such as Google, Twitter, etc, I notice one often tends to get sample summaries, with URL, headlines and, crucially, possibly first lines of copy.
Upon which you form an first impression, and then decide whether to pursue further.
Hence I am a tad concerned about journalistic and editorial trends that employ the following technique, especially with the latter:
Headline (often also of dubious summary value, depending on agenda of the guys writing it)
Copy: [Rampant opinion/untruth/dodgy/claim], followed by an attribution to a [person, generic, unspecified 'them', latest daft research by quango/charity/thinktank with pension pot to top up], often with the added spice of being set in the future ['will say']. As in:
The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary.
Tonight, Nick Clegg uses those arguments to become...
At best, that doesn't strike me as totally competent, or indeed kosher reporting.
Complain about this comment
I'm with you xTunbridge.
Trident is a dangerous waste of space and money.
" We kill you , and you kill us and Everywhere the Wind Blows in between dies too!"
Meanwhile Trident leaks all over a beautiful part of the River Clyde, polluting the most populated area of Scotland.
Does anyone really believe that having Trident prevents any of the mindless nutters in this little world of ours firing dirty bombs , nuclear or otherwise?
Save the money , save the Clyde, Save Scotland and all countries of the UK.
Cassandra , what have you been saying??
Complain about this comment
Re No 11
Absolutely agree, neither Nick Clegg nor the Lib Dems matter at all.
Complain about this comment
WEll I ll tell you that I ill not vote liberal now..HOw are we suppose to defend the country from tirents.? NO WAY..the liberals have now took the place fo the LONNEY LEFT of the 80's ..Furthermoe, it is a distraction Nick oncmore from the Tory cuts of Mr 10 percent....
Complain about this comment
It is laudable, if nothing else, that Nick Clegg (a policician!!!!!!!!!) has admitted:
"I've changed my mind". How refreshing to hear one of them being honest.
Complain about this comment
#starshifter: I am afraid that your assumptions are incorrect. Cruise Missiles (TLAM or similar) are very easy to compromise, and as has been proved many times are easy to shoot down. As a method of conventional warfare they are effective. As a means of delivering a nuclear deterrent they are not - for too many reasons to go into here.
#the gangaphone: I dont think we need to worry about someone getting their hands on a pakistani weapon and placing it inside a suitcase. The leap in technolocy required it quite significant. If Pakistan's arsenal did fall into militant hands it would be more of a threat placed inside a shipping container and sailed up the Potomac/Thames.
A Nuclear Deterrent is only a deterrent against a nation state. Terrorism requires a conventional response. However Trident replacement is being built to counter the threat that will/may manifest itself between 2025 and 2060(ish). What we should decide is what those threats will be, and whether they justify investing in a deterrent. For a start we can assume that conflicts over resources (Hydrocarbons, Water) will increase, and these will be Global. India & China's demand will increase hugely, and although unpalateable to think, a conflict with either of those is not a far fetched possibility within the time frame. To counter that a Deterrent would be necessary.
Complain about this comment
Funny how most other developed countries don't seem to need this essential 'deterrent'. The Swedes, Germans, Spaniards et al must be quaking in their boots. I don't know how they sleep at night.
This is a POLITICAL weapon. It has no other use. I thought we'd established that through years of argument. It buys us a seat at the 'top table' of countries, ie the UN security council.
The question is whether the cost of £20bn is worth it for this ticket. It may be, I don't know, but would like to see it carefully argued, and not get muddied with all this deterrent nonsense.
Complain about this comment
davidou1234 59
How about Brown Mr.7 per cent, but 10% if health is ring-fenced. Never could make his mind up Brown.
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions and #48.
Yes, I too watched and listened to the Prague Speech: Unfortunately, as Shakespaere would have it, 'much ado about nothing'!
President Obama can make as many speeches as he likes on Nuclear Disarmament, however, the reality is that not one such weapon has been dismantled. Nor is the USA going to do so in the near future.
The USA is determined to prevent N-Korea, Iran and other nations having such WMD and also is trying to stop perceived terrorist-groups or indeed psychotic individuals from getting their hands on such technology.
You and I could both wish for a better world, minus WMD, but, the UK giving up its Nuclear Deterrent at this time is a non-starter.
You suggest the nuclear and non-nuclear nations are not all such "crack-pots": Regrettably we will have to differ on that key point.
It is my observation that some Leaders of Nations can develop WMD whilst denying there was a Holocaust (Iran), starve millions of their own people whilst developing WMD (N.Korea), have 1 in 3 houses without running water and still make WMD (India/Pakistan), invade sovereign nations against UNO resolutions (USA/UK/Russia), refuse to recognise entire People's right to a homeland (Israel/Palestine/Syria), calculatedly suppress hundreds of millions (China), pretend their Nation is an ally whilst keeping a force de frappe and offering no support at all (France), and Individual Messianic Leaders can chillingly proclaim "death to America".. "death to Zionists".. "death to the West".. and seek WMD because not everyone is willing to show 'submission' to their version of God.
Thus, in my #10, I characterised Nick Clegg's Nuclear disarmament policy as kamikazi for these British Isles.
Complain about this comment
13. At 11:24pm on 16 Jun 2009, glanafon wrote:
Can somebody explain how a nuke is obsolete fairly shortly. Surely a nuke remains a nuke. How is this obsolete nukes obliteration in action bettered. If youre nuked your nuked surely. Just what is the improvement that is being sought with a better nuke, more fuel efficiency, greener, cheaper, better, well what. An AK47 was designed in 1940s. It still appears effective. So can somebody explain why Trident needs replacement, other than the salesman of the replacement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is something that has always perplexed me also. Apparently we have enough nuclear weapons as it is to destroy the world ten times over.
Complain about this comment
13. At 11:24pm on 16 Jun 2009, glanafon wrote:
Can somebody explain how a nuke is obsolete fairly shortly. Surely a nuke remains a nuke. How is this obsolete nukes obliteration in action bettered. If youre nuked your nuked surely. Just what is the improvement that is being sought with a better nuke, more fuel efficiency, greener, cheaper, better, well what. An AK47 was designed in 1940s. It still appears effective. So can somebody explain why Trident needs replacement, other than the salesman of the replacement
=============================================================
Thanks for making me laugh this morning.
Perhaps they're going to get a good price under some kind of scrapage deal.
Complain about this comment
tvkev45 and #28.
re, ".. Trident is a complete waste of money as it is unlikely ever to be used.."
Err, if you get the terminology 'Nuclear Deterrent' then you will appreciate that unused Trident would be demonstrably among the very best expenditure of Public monies.
Complain about this comment
We simply can't afford a nuclear deterrent any more. Period.
Complain about this comment
It is like a car, after a while it is knackered. The Submarines that carry the missiles will be knackered by 2025, therefore need replacing. The Weapons system will be fundamentally the same.
Complain about this comment
Why nnot ask Ed Balls if he wants to buy a tridnet?
Ed now believes we shall be spending again real soon due to his confidence in the recovery. Surely Ed and Yvette can stump up a few billion for trident?
Common Ed, show us the money.
Call an election for goodness sake.
Complain about this comment
#32
The point is the Cold War is over and the enemies we have do not conform to type.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes they do.
North Korea & Iran want to get their hands on nuclear technology so they can get political bargaining power behind them & why not?
The Western media would try to have you believe that dangerous lunatics run both, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Kim Jong-Il has been described by one former American Secretary as being well above his brief.
As for Iran, well with Israel on their doorstep (& we all know they have nuclear weapons), wouldnt you want to balance the scales a little?
Many believe that South Africa lost its place behind the International table of power when it decided to give up its nuclear program & thats exactly what will happen if we give up Trident.
Ive been against Trident for a long time, but recent events in North Korea & Iran have hade me think that now is not the time to give in.
If you are talking about the terrorist threat of a rogue group, then im afraid that only International cooperation will work to stop this possibility.
Complain about this comment
£20 billion? Do we have to double or treble that to get a realistic cost?
Apart from the fact that this decision will probably made by the USA for us, we should also consider whether the "UK" will be around in 20 years time.
An independent England will have no need for Trident whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
The one thing that I find resassuring about your article, Nick, is the comment, "Tonight, the Lib Dem leader told me that he had "changed my mind"."
If only some other politicians would review their decisions and stances in the light of changing situations instead of doggedly sticking to the status quo of their party viewpoint.
In fact, that one comment alone, could well ensure I vote for the Lib Dems next time around.
Complain about this comment
If we scrap Trident the UN will make it illegal for anyone to attck us.
Without WMD we are not a threat. Or so Iraq thought?
Complain about this comment
@ ikamaskeip
"Err, if you get the terminology 'Nuclear Deterrent' then you will appreciate that unused Trident would be demonstrably among the very best expenditure of Public monies."
I have a rock that keeps away tigers that you may be interested in purchasing. I've had it for ten years and never been attacked by a tiger.
The problem with Trident is that it's too big to use everyday and if we do get to the point where we use it, it'll be irrelevant compared to what the US and Russians will be launching.
Complain about this comment
If we must have a submarine based nuclear deterrent, can we at laest plan sensibly and get value for money.
US Ohio class nuke subs shelflife 40 years, UK Vanguard life 25 - 30 years probably 25 due to poor design. UK subs also prone to nuclear reactor leaking, which is not nice for the crew - reason poor design.
The missiles are made and serviced by the US. The US have decided they will not service the current missiles any longer, therefore a new system is needed. A bit like Microsoft withdrawing support from XP to force computer users to transfer to Vista. The new contract should specify when that support will expire, rather than rely on the US supplier's greed.
The new subs should be the Ohio class built under licence in the UK or the new US class of submarine yet to be designed. We are in NATO after all. Clearly the UK designers are not up to the job: either design should be a joint collaboration with the US or insert severe penalty clauses on the UK supplier. Financial penalty clauses will not work, something that may concentrate minds might be a spell on front line service in the Afghanistan theatre?
I am not at all convinced that Trident works at all well. It is not so much that news articles are covered by the Official secrets Act, but in agricultural terms there is an awful lot of b**l S**t written.
Complain about this comment
Nuclear weapons are obsolete as America Russia and China between them and the UN security council will not allow any state to use them. What we have to fear are terrorists who dont give a fig about MAD and who will use them whatever deterrent is used. Put the money into spying and counter-insurgency instead of wasting it on Nuclear Weapons.
Complain about this comment
It is vital that we have Trident. It is a well know fact that any country without nuclear weapons will be invaded immediately by foreign powers.
Look, for example, at Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Algeria, Cameroon, Holland, Spain and Italy (to name but a few). None of these countries have nuclear weapons and they are invaded virtually every day.
And look at the jobs argument. Although it's true that you can create far more jobs spending the same amount of money in other areas of the economy, that's far too simplistic. I expect if we didn't spend the 20bn on Trident, the only other option would be to set fire to the money.
This PROVES that we need trident and my argument is even stronger as I have written 'PROOVES' in capital letters.
Complain about this comment
20 billion seems cheap to me - think about the sums flying over the table in the banking debacle !
I like Clegg, but am not sure he should be arguing this issue on a financial bassis.
And the World probably needs a few stable players with big clout to act as a deterrent to dodgy regimes.
Complain about this comment
#73 Sutara
Mr Clegg also changed his mind about a referendum on the EU Treaty/Constitution, but denied it was a change of mind?
Complain about this comment
I really can't see the deterrent point of view. Countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland etc. have no nukes. Are they in danger from Iran and co? I can't see it. Antagonists know they will face an umbrella of nuclear retalliation from somewhere else.
No. Getting rid of Tridents means losing a seat at the top political tables.
Complain about this comment
#55 east-beast wrote:
"My home has never been burgled, so should I have my
burgalar alarm removed!"
Your burglar alarm wouldn't devastate half a continent, decimate its (innocent) population and render it uninhabitable for centuries.
Several excellent points have been made as to why Trident is unnecessary and should be scrapped, not in 2024, but right now. I agree with them all.
Hopefully the Scots will soon opt out of the Union, and good luck to them. The you can park your nuclear missile subs alongside the Palace of Westminster, where any radiation leakage, accidents would do the least damage.
Complain about this comment
I can't think of a scenario where the UK would use/threaten to use nuclear weapons independently of the USA. We should:
-unilaterally disarm
-formalise the reality of living under the US shield by supporting all requests to host radar tracking stations etc
-tailor our Armed Forces so that they are the best possible complementary fit with the US.
Complain about this comment
MonkeyBot5000 and #75.
No!
No need to lend me your 'rock', I've some of my own, and they don't just keep tigers from the door, but, every kind of animal.
Of course there are rogue creatures whose behaviour is so unpredictable no one can rely on anything dissuading them, but, at least I've an option to chuck a rock or 2 if the need ever arose: It may be my pile of rocks has been enough upto now and may or may not be enough in the future, but irrespective of what my neighbours friendly or otherwise may choose to do from their property, I prefer to know a choice of rock is there.
I am always surprised by the amount of people who argue that not having Nuclear Weapons somehow increases the UK's safety: Have never been able to follow that kamikazi logic as expressed by Clegg etc. - - the British should disarm - - because those Russians (past and present) and North Koreans, Iranians, bin Laden etc. in the modern world will be so much nicer neighbours afterwards!?
Complain about this comment
Deterrent for whom exactly?
No one other than the US and Russia has weapons that can reach us anyway. Everyone else is aiming elsewhere and within reach of their own country
Anyway, if anyone remembers, once someone has fired a nuclear weapon at us, there is nothing we can do to stop it adn it will hit regardless of whether we fire one back or not. Given the extremist threats at the moment, I don't think retailiation is something they are worried about providing the anihilate us first.
It USED to be a deterrent in the days of the cold war, but now it's simply an offensive weapon. Using the emotive defense of a deterrent is misleading as we are not threatened by ICBM's from unfriendly countries yet. Besides, it's the friendly countries I'd be worried about anyway
Complain about this comment
The gangs on the streets of South London when asked why they carry knives always answer 'because everyone else does and it makes me feel safer' and yet knife killings are on the increase and everyone is appalled by them. Upgrading Trident is the same logic applied to nations.
Give all the money to the armed forces and develop top-notch anti-missile and anti-stealth systems. We need the best armed forces in the world not more 'bazar' bought big bombs.
Complain about this comment
So he is Mr Short term then. Public purse under pressure look for a big project with big numbers. Look at Trident, £20 Billion! Bingo! Found it! Headline found, speech to be made, briefings to the press and we are underway.
1. As probably many have said already, £20 Billion "over a period of years" not all at once so any financial gain would be minimal.
2. 5000/10,000 jobs guaranteed for the next 15/20 years. Barrow will continue to have a work force.
3. It is a deterrent that helps protect a £1.5 trillion pound economy.
4. Unilateral disarmament when countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and China all have the weapons and would be very unwilling to give them up. So do we really think that getting rid of our last form of defence would make them suddenly say, "Well the British have got rid of there weapons so we will do the same"? Doubtful.
5. Although people don't like it we are one of the big 5 at the security council. By getting rid of our deterrent would put that place in jeapordy. I can see why Clegg and his europhile party would like that because the EU would pressure the UK to give up its seat to the EU.
Unfortunately we do not live in a dream world where there is no fighting, no hunger, no poverty and no famine etc. The world is what it is. You can have your lobby groups, like CND, Greenpeace etc professing that if we got rid of Trident etc but they operate in an environment and society that the deterrent has helped protect for the last 50 years. It has provided the freedom that they operate in.
Times are changing, is it a great idea to take away an option when we do not know what the future holds all for the sake of a headline and a £1 Billion saving?
What would happen to the work force?
What would happen to the skill base?
How would it affect our standing in the world? And by that I mean countries that actually make a "difference". It is that "difference" as mentioned above, those with the big clout who actually have a say. Is it any coincedince that they also have nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, China, France)?
Complain about this comment
If any one Country was to use Nuclear Weapons then it will not only destroy the Area attacked, but it will also be spread and carried quickly within the Weather and Wind pattern to affect and destroy over Countries.
Therefore, just what IS the point of spending 20 Billion on something that if ever used will have World-Wide effects of destruction.
Complain about this comment
Listen up people RUSSIA has not gone away they are getting stronger by the day an we ignore that to our peril. Only last night we saw I'vadinnajacket sitting quite contently with his Russian allies (where do you think he got the front form to rig the election. If this odious little cretin does get the bomb we will without doubt need a deterrent in the form of Trident because without it we would be at his mercy. Should he lob a bomb our way he would be secure in the knowledge none would be coming back at him. The USA would not retaliate on our behalf as that would give Russia the excuse to enter the frat and possibly enter Iran on the pretext of support and once there She would not be going back. The conflict would escalate world wide as Russia would then control the Straits of Hormuz ergo the majority of the Worlds oil traffic. It may well be a far fetched scenario but I bet it's one the US military has planned for. So Mr Clegg get your head from up your backside and come into the real world of Politics little boys should stay at home and play with little boy's toys.
Complain about this comment
86 traducer
"The gangs on the streets of South London when asked why they carry knives always answer 'because everyone else does and it makes me feel safer' and yet knife killings are on the increase and everyone is appalled by them. Upgrading Trident is the same logic applied to nations."
Simplistic, dangerous and specious nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Is it time to look at our defence strategy as an overall rather than focusing on the polarised debate of nuclear weapons.
Surely the clue is in the name 'defence'!
It appears to me that through a political machismo we are determined to punch above our weight when it comes to commiting our troops to serve overseas in conflicts that are not clearly defined in their objectives. The spend on this and the future of a nuclear deterant needs to be looked at as to it's effectiveness in providing a defence for our country.
I for one would not want to see the our services made irrelevant through cutting funds, however there is a danger that the funds will become too thinly spread to allow for adequate levels of equipment etc.
I would rather see us punch above our weight in terms of technology in providing future arms manufacturers with the best there is in technology thus giving us an export route. This could be assisted if some of the cost currently spent could be re-routed into technological advances.
Complain about this comment
I will not vote Lib Dem if this is one of their policies.
I will not vote Convservative since they have no policies.
I used to say I wouldn't vote Labour because of J Smith's illiberal reign as home secretary, let's see how Johnson does...
Complain about this comment
#7 BankSlickerminustheR
"The Swiss seem to get by with with just a small pocket army knife!!!"
Yep but they don't go around starting illegal wars and generally messing where they are not wanted.
Complain about this comment
50. At 06:05am on 17 Jun 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
As far as NATO go's it as never been put to the test and there are country's within NATO who just don't want to help unless there is some thing in it for them and who would go to the aggressor and make a deal
Complain about this comment
If there were ever grounds for having a pan European defence strategy, nuclear armament is it.
What is the point of Britain and France having complementary systems when as part of Europe we are each meant to defend the continent as a whole. Is it national pride, fear of the Germans, what?
In an unstable world there is a need for a deterrent but in such a group of trusting partners as Europe should be, that deterrent does not need to be duplicated.
Both France and Britain have major financial problems; surely it is time for us to get together and thrash this one out.
Complain about this comment
Re: #82 Bryn-Teilo
Quite right about what my burglar alarm in not capable of doing.
Perhaps, though, it has stopped me from being burgled.
Perhaps if we hadn't had/don't retain a nuclear deterent we wouldn't/ won't be having this conversation.
Complain about this comment
'The one thing as an American that I deplore more than anything else other than being embarrissed at my own president's actions in my name, is the unfavorable views held by some of my country's allies' citizenry toward my country.'
It's not your country that we dislike. I think it just annoys us that we are not allowed to vote for the person who makes our foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
Well , all those so keen to keep this weapon , do you fancy the leaky things parked at your door for a change??
One daft country fires one of these weapons and its bye bye beautiful world.
Terrorist , government or rogue state , its the same difference , Ta Ta Bella time!
The UK is no longer of great importance in the world, no longer a great voice to be listened to in awe , by other countries.
We are a parking place for a US weapon, a jumping off point for the yanks and nought else.
20 billion? At least triple that and you may have a more accurate figure.
Complain about this comment
47. At 04:25am on 17 Jun 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
Apologies for some of my countrymen
The majority of us Brits are very thankful and grateful to America for its continuing help in so many fields
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Sir/Lord Sugar can arrange for his company to build a cut-price nuclear deterrent?
Complain about this comment
#98 Diabloandco
Exactly it isn't British it never was, we have no autonomy. Either we have a independant nuclear deterrant or we don't bother at all.
Trident is half measures and as such is totally pointless.
Complain about this comment
6. At 10:50pm on 16 Jun 2009, moraymint
I agree with you. I cannot forsee any circumstances when our government would authorise the use of nuclear weapons against another country. It would be interesting to hear from those who wish to retain Trident and its successor as to which cities and countries they would be happy to see nuclear weapons used against.
Scrap Trident's replacement, spend half the saving on strengthening our conventional forces, kit, men and hardware, and save the other GBP10 billion.
Complain about this comment
Trident is a cold war era weapons system designed to combat the overwhelming numbers of a Soviet led attack on Nato forces across the northern plains of West Germany.
Spot the continued relevance of any fact in the above statement.
Replacing Trident will cost an initial £20 billion plus a further £40 - £50 billion in running and maintenance costs over the period of it's service life time.
Spot the definition of affordability in the above statement.
Tory and Labour leaders like Trident because, as they take turns being Prime Minister, it gives them parity with the French and means the Americans have to continue to pay lip service to the so called 'special relationship'.
Spot the uncomfortable truth in the above statement.
If the Lib Dems where right to say the war on Iraq was wrong; that the debt fuelled boom of the last 8 years was unsustainable and that ID cards are an expensive curtailment of our civil liberties too far, why is it that they are wrong on Trident?
Spot the policy declarations in the above stated question that make Labour and the Tories squirm with shame at their own woeful record on such issues!
Complain about this comment
19. At 11:31pm on 16 Jun 2009, york1900 wrote:
Just another one who blows which ever way the wind blows in hope of scoring a point or two
===
A bit like all the past and present Labour cabinet members and MPs who were once CND members, but now want to retain our independent nuclear deterrent.
Hyprcrites.
Complain about this comment
55. At 08:48am on 17 Jun 2009, east-beast wrote:
My home has never been burgled, so should I have my
burgalar alarm removed!
===
If there is a chance of it blowing up and killing you, your family, all your neighbours and everyone else in your town or city, yes!
Complain about this comment
59. At 09:16am on 17 Jun 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
WEll I ll tell you that I ill not vote liberal now..HOw are we suppose to defend the country from tirents.? NO WAY..the liberals have now took the place fo the LONNEY LEFT of the 80's ..Furthermoe, it is a distraction Nick oncmore from the Tory cuts of Mr 10 percent....
===
David, you were never going to vote LibDem anyway, so you are no loss to Mr Clegg.
Would the looney left of the 1980's by any chance be the current government, who were all CND members then?
Complain about this comment
"east-beast wrote:
Re: #82 Bryn-Teilo
Quite right about what my burglar alarm in not capable of doing.
Perhaps, though, it has stopped me from being burgled.
Perhaps if we hadn't had/don't retain a nuclear deterent we wouldn't/ won't be having this conversation."
You raise a valid point, if we didn't have the nuclear deterent we may have ended up as a smoking nuclear wasteland like the rest of the world which doesn't have a nuclear deterent... oh wait.
Complain about this comment
100. At 1:34pm on 17 Jun 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:
Perhaps Sir/Lord Sugar can arrange for his company to build a cut-price nuclear deterrent?
===
Followed by the inevitable helpline response of "Have you tried switching it off and then on again?" as an errant warhead zooms towards Washington, Paris or Berlin!
Complain about this comment
55. At 08:48am on 17 Jun 2009, east-beast wrote:
My home has never been burgled, so should I have my
burgalar alarm removed!
Quite right! I haven't had mine removed either, but I rarely switch it on - and I still haven't been burgled.
SO...
If Trident works as a deterrent by having undetectable submarines around the world, which no-one knows where they are (and consequently where they are not)
AND.......
we want to keep a cheap alternative to the current nuclear deterrent
WHY DON'T WE.............
deactivate the whole lot but pretend we're sending them to sea and then use the New Labour spin machine to convince the world that we are building a whole new fleet, which, of course we're not really and then pretend we're not sending them to sea either
AND THEN........................
spend the 20 billion on Ice Cream!
Complain about this comment
Forget Trident as there is a much cheaper alternative. Post Gordon Brown's web site around the globe. This would surely stop any enemies of the UK in their tracks.
Complain about this comment
Re: #105 yellowbelly1959
#107 Mark-WE
#109 donkei
I actually don't have a burglar alarm but then you weren't to know that.
I do have a great big dog however. Or is it one of those things that
you plug in and makes a sound like a dog.
I'm off to the Congo now to check out claims that they drink Umbongo.
Ta Ta.
Complain about this comment
i dont see what the problem is, once the ministers expenses are sorted out that should pay for the replacement by the time its needed no bother
Complain about this comment
tbarry (#30) :
"The $64,000 question is though, why have we never had a referendum on having a nuclear arsenal? Or the Lisbon treaty? Or changing our voting system?? Why - because it suits those in charge not to let us!! I vote for a TRIPLE referendum on these key issues. It will help to restore the democratic mandate"
About time people remembered that democratic governments aren't elected to do the will of the people. They are elected to govern and make decisions on issues such as Trident that the majority - most probably including yourself, and definitely including myself - is not sufficiently knowledgeable to make.
A government that truly does the "will of the people" is, in reality, a puppet to widespread public ignorance and the opinionated media upon which it feeds.
Complain about this comment
There have been several impassioned debates about this on other sites, not least Conservative Home.
Replacing the system "with something cheaper" is just gesture politics. We own the missiles and that investment has already been made and will last through the life of the next delivery vehicle. Any investment in a cheaper alternative will have to replace the missiles and therefore is likely to cost a lot more than any trident upgrade. Any cruise missile system would lack the range or have to be fired from an aircraft or ship which adds extra risk and cost in terms of payload delivery. These weapons are of a different magnitude - not a like for like comparison if that is valid.
Extending the life of the current system sounds practical but components like the nuclear reactors have a limited service life without costly renewal. Polaris ran into huge problems when its life was extended apparently.
Reducing the number of "boats" is an obvious reduction but apparently you need 4 to guarantee having one at sea at any given moment given operational turnround, servicing/maintenance etc. It occurs to me that this is one practical area where reduction might be possible if boat rotation could be kept secret. If potential enemies don't know whether a boat is deployed or not that still acts as a pretty good deterrent. The current boats could be set on a different rotation to extend operational life at the expense of holes in overall cover.
One option I've never seen discussed anywhere. We are agonising over this decision because the recession puts massive pressure on budgets now and for decades to come. America is in exactly the same situation. Obama might feel that he has a massive over capacity post cold war. Maybe we could hire/buy "a couple of boats" from him reducing our outlay and his at a stroke. Has anybody asked Obama what options for cooperation exist?
One thing I know for sure, while we have men and women dying in theatres of war for lack of the right equipment, any expenditure on something that fulfills a hypothetical requirement comes way down the list compared with meeting real shortcomings for real engagements. Our troops deserve the best infantry weapons, the best body armour, the best light vehicles, the best medevac, the best helicopters etc. Either that or we have to castrate the politicians who keep putting our troops into harms way. The latter is obviously quite cheap and may even be popular with the public in the current situation.
Complain about this comment
Clegg is not advocating scrapping the nuclear deterrent, merely advocating a different delivery system. Trident missiles are launched from a submerged platform(Vangaurd class submarines) which is manpower intensive and expensive to maintain. He merely wishes to change this system to a more cost effective version.
Complain about this comment
york @ 19
we have to have our own Nuclear weapons so if it came to it we could do the job ourselves
not sure I like the sound of that "job" you're proposing there, York
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip #64. . .
First, might I ask you how you know that thus far "not one nuclear weapon in the US's arsonal has been dismantled?" And further more, how you know that we don't plan to reduce our stock pile any time soon? Did you look it up? Do you have access to top secret Pentagon documents? I'm not being sarcastic. I would really like to know.
For the record, if what you're saying is true, if Obama was essentially lieing through his teath about his vision of a nuclear free world, then I think he, and any other leader who professes that same desire while pursuing a policy to the contrary is wrong. I think it would do world politicions a "world" of good to find their inner DR. Suce, and say what they mean and mean what they say.
Second, yes I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that I too would love nothing more than for that John Lennon song to become reality. And I too am a realist, and recognize that alas, no matter how much we may want it, it will never come to be, and thus some form of protection will always have to be employed by nations just to be on the safe side. But I still think that this can be done without nuclear weapons. And if you'll kindly have a look back at my post #48, you will see that the nations that I specifically mentioned that I feel don't necessarily consist of "crack pot terrorist groups" (your words not mine,) are western and/or stable democracies. If it ever comes to the point where we must force ourselves to accept, and live in a world with nuclear weapons, then of all the nations in the world, I personally would sleep the soundest knowing that only France, the UK, the US, and Brazil had nuclear weapons, and not the likes of Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. Insidentily, it was not me who suggested that every nuclear power possessing nation is stable, rather it was you who implyed that they all have some digree of unstability. And based on this theory, shouldn't the UK dispose of its nuclear capability? I mean in your list you rattled off a list of every nation and the shady at best, things that they have done while possessing and/or pursuing nuclear weaponry, you specifically mentioned that nations can "invade other sovern nations against the will of the U.N.," referenced the US and UK as examples, and then went on to proclaim your pashonit beliefs that the UK should keep its nuclear deterrent. So I guess I don't understand. Are some nations good enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons or not? Can some nations despite their mistakes be trusted to act wisely and responsibly with nuclear weapons or not? Would the world just simply be better off with no nuclear weapons?
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecision and #117.
Hmm, sensitive soul!
Hey, I'm totally in support of the USA - - look up any of my posts on these Blog articles - - and did not mean any criticism of the USA or President Obama (although, I do think his particular abilities have been much over-stated) when I wrote no nuclear weapons have been dismantled.
No, I was rather stating the obvious that whilst some WMD have been taken out of action by USA and Russia there is really no clear pattern or policy of Nuclear Disarmament (and who can blame them given present international issues!?).
Incidentally, have to differ with you again: I think the Lennon 'Imagine' song is about as pretentious c#ap as it can get from a real fan of the Beatles (grew up with them) who from Yoko onward didn't believe a word/expression by the Liver lad living it up in New York!
As for all the rest that you wrote. It is well intentioned and aspirational, but, unfortunately largely without a reality-check on the World as it is.
Of course the "..world would be better off.." without Nuclear Weapons. Are there WMD across the planet? Yes.
Is there any chance anytime soon WMD will be got rid of? No.
Even if the Nations got rid of WMD would that alleviate the possibility of a rogue-nation or crack-pot terrorist getting hold of the technology and creating a weapon? No.
Yes, let those of us who believe in Human progression and the principles of a liberal-democratic society strive to attain a change for the better.
No, let none of us put down our Nuclear shield whilst an Ayatollah in Iran, nut-job in Afghanistan or N.Korea, and come to that, unstable and unenlightened regimes are in China, Pakistan, India, Israel etc.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip #118. . .
My apologies!!
I certainly do not think in the slightest bit that you think badly of, or don't support the USA; and I ask your forgiveness if I implyed so!! That was most definatly the absolute farthest objective from my original intent!! I know from your past posts that you hold the US in high esteem; in fact, I remember debating (or rather trading envious compliments over who's country is fairer and treated its citizenry most equally) with you a while back. Personally, I honestly don't care whether you hold the US in high esteem or not; please don't get the impression that I'm some extreme right-wing conservitive nut with an '"Love us or leave us" attitude regarding people's feelings toward my country...because I'm the furthest from it and unfortunately, there are far too many people with that mind set in this country!!!! I encourage disagreement, criticism, and chastisement. All I ask is that it be done fairly and respectfully; and it just irratates me to no end when I hear/read of some of the outragious criticisms/accusations made of the US by some foreigners. So again my apologies if I accidentally implyed that I believed you to be part of that camp.
Regarding nuclear weapons. I misunderstood you when you said that not one has been dismantled despite Obama's speach. Of course the man's only been in office barely 6 months now, so obviously he can't have made that much progress, even if he wanted to, in eleviating the US's stock pile of nuclear weapons. Believe me, I'm certainly noone who believes Obama to be a God!! And I know that in the past there has been no real pattern for dismantling our nuclear weapon arsonal because past administrations wern't, it seems, too interested in doing so. But Obama seems (so far) to have made a real break with the past, and it seems as though he truely believes that a reduction, perhaps not an elimination, but at least a reduction of nuclear weapons in all countries would be the best, most stable path toward a relativly safer world, no matter how small that change may be.
I completely understand and sympathise with the overwhelming majority of your argument for a nuclear shield, however, just think. If Obama is successfull in drasticly reducing the US's nuclear arsonal, and if other countries as a result follow suit, and if as a result of that the technology to develop nuclear weapons is either locked down or destroyed, then even crack pot terrorist groups can't get hold of it. So given this scinario, wouldn't a nuclear free world be a good thing? Or am I being too insanely naive? You can be honest. My feelings won't be hurt.
Of course I wholeheartedly agree that should we be forced to accept a world with nuclear weapons, I would feel most comfortable knowing that only stable democratic nations with progressive, liberal values such as the US, UK and France possessing them as aposed to unstable dictatorships such as North Korea, Iran and/or China. On this there is no dispute.
Complain about this comment
We should have our own strategic and industrial capabilities in all area's , which is why JSF was a mistake. We should pursue a policy much
like France. We have the engineers just need the right politician to support that base.
Complain about this comment
Clegg has been fairly anonymous until recently. His PR have obviously encouraged him to get involved a bit more with the big stories (e.g. Gurkhas) likely to dominate the tabloids, even if this means him totally changing his mind.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS