They say that the next government would threaten both front line Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the billions required to replace the fleet of submarines. They also express "deep concerns" that Trident has been omitted from the Strategic Defence Review scheduled for after the election. They argue that any review should look at the questions:
"Is the UK's security best served by going ahead with business as usual, reducing our nuclear arsenal, adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?"
The best defence the other side comes up with is this from Paul Beaver, a defence analyst:
"This is not a military programme. This is a national programme. It is about Britain’s place in the world. It is about our relationship with the United States most of all."
So there you have it folks Trident isn't military. If we do away with our nuclear Tridents America who is threatening countries gaining nuclear capability will no longer be our friend. I'm still trying to get my head round any logic in that statement, I've given up.
General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank however adds weight to the Generals' case saying:
"Do we really need the kind of effective weapon we had in the Cold War? There is quite an argument to say we do not."
I seem to remember Nick Clegg using almost that form of words last Thursday.
1 comment:
I think the theory is that while we have Trident, the US sees us as an equal, whereas if we didn't have nuclear weapons, we'd drop right down the priority list. Which is obviously a completely counterproductive argument given the US's policy on trying to discourage countries from developing nuclear weapons. The UK is supporting those efforts, but simultaneously demonstrating that if you have nukes, you get taken more seriously. A confused policy, I'd say.
Post a Comment