General Dannatt is reported in today's Telegraph as doubtful about the merits of fast jets and of Trident II. Remind you of anyone?
Of course, his scepticism about fast jets is unsurprising, given that, as I explained to you previously (to some incredulity, I recall), manned air-to-air fighters are already in their final generation of development, and even the weapons already developed are unlikely to see full delivery of original planned procurements. Many Cold War era hangover weapons are being reconsidered around the world - an example being the Obama administration's opposition to completion of the original F-22 Raptor delivery plans. Even regarding fast air-to-ground weapons, there is a strong view within Congress that the JSF is the final generation weapon - a position taken by Robert Hale, for example.
I would not share the view the Telegraph attributes to General Dannatt that the UK's nuclear deterrent is "for the next few years….but maybe not forever". My scepticism is about Trident II, not about nuclear weapons per se. There are those that argue that a submarine-based system is cheap, gives high probability of target delivery, and offers the flexibility of both city-killing and lower yield weapons. I'm not convinced, yet, on these points, but if they were right then we should indeed stick with that. What we don't want is an absurdly expensive, obsolete vanity weapon that we cannot use and that does not deter anyone we might plausibly be threatened by - which is what I fear Trident II really is.
