« This is what ministers SHOULD resign for... | Main | David Cameron suggests higher pay for inner city teachers »

Comments

I particularly admire the Editor's gratuitous closing reference to the fact that Portillo is against the renewal of Trident, deployed as the clinching argument for the pro-Bomb case.

A plausible financial argument can be made for scrapping nuclear weapons (who are we going to fight; leave it to the Yanks; would we ever drop them; etc etc). I've even heard an argument that it's only because of the armament disparity that our enemies engage in asymmetric terrorist warfare (rubbish; that strikes me as being a bit like saying we have to appease nice Mr Hitler - our enemies engage in terrorism because they're our enemies).

Of course we have to renew Trident. This is the only time when the 'top table' argument actually works - there's a small club and we have to be in it.

(PS - I claim the Godwin Prize for the earliest gratuitous reference to the Nazis.)

Is Liam testifying before the Senate Committee?

Portillo seems to miss the fact that one submarine cruising the Atlantic armed with nuclear weapons probably deters more than several aircraft carriers. We could become more of a client state by outsourcing our protection to the US even more than we do

Of course when we actually need to use weapons - Falklands, Iraq, Kosovo etc then we need the other stuff but we can have smaller armed forces because of deterrence.

I'm still peeved about Howarth strongly supporting selling arms to Saudi Arabia the other month to be honest!

I would agree with you William about the Trident replacement.It would be even better if our nuclear deterent was truly independant and was not built and serviced by a foreign power whose interests may not always coincide with ours.
Regarding Iraq ,Gerald Howarth is quite right to question the timing.Only 2 weeks after the US Army downgraded its belief that ANY Iraqi battalions were capable of independant action against insurgents it seems suspicous to put it mildly.
I would hope that our defence spokesmen will watch this situation extremely carefully and treat any announcements from the MOD or Downing Street regarding the situation in Iraq with the deepest of scepticism

The case in favour of our continuing to have nuclear weapons is clear.
1 The use of nuclear weaponry is not in the interests of the aggressor, who has designs on the use of land and people in the target country following its conquest. Nukes are defensive weapons.
2 The presence of nukes on both sides kept the cold war from going hot. This was near thing at least once. This was very cost-effective compared to massed tanks, etc.
3 Were it not for the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, young Midshipman Big John would have been valiantly enduring the kamikazes attacking the British Pacific Fleet in 1945.
4 The predicted casualties from the assault on the Home Islands of Japan were well over 5,000,000, of which more than 1,000,000 would have been on the Allied side.
5 At Oak Ridge Tennessee, a memorial day last year for the Hiroshima bomb attracted not only the unrepentant bombardier (bomb aimer) of Enola Gray, which delivered the weapon; but also Japanese newspeople whose grandfathers stessed that had the bomb not been used, they would not have survived the Allied conventional assault. All were glad of it.
6 Sorry. guys, but I have been there.

For a low taxation party, this argument always amazes me. Trident and its fleet of submarines costs about £11 billion a year – or about 10% of our total Income Tax revenue. To justify that amount of spend there needs to be a very clear risk to which a nuclear deterrent is the only answer. I'm not disputing that such a risk existed historically, but there is absolutely no evidence it still exists or could emerge quicker than we could re-arm.

On the moral level, how can we preach to Iran while we also contemplate ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and rearming ourselves with weapons whose use is illegal?


Mark, I don't think the Iranian government going to be swayed by our adopting unilateralism, any more than the Soviet Union would have been in the eighties. We all know who the Iranians really want to "wipe off the map".

LF is making a written submission, Donal.

As a compromise solution, could we not scale down our nuclear capability and reduce costs without eliminating it entirely ?

We do need a replacement for Trident. You never know when utterly anhilating two hundred targets with warheads equivalent to ten Hiroshimas might come in handy. However, it needs to be truly independent. The Conservatives made a bad choice when we replaced Polaris. All the other nuclear powers make their own weapons. What good is it to be at the "top table" when we can't even make our own bomb. The Indians and Pakistanis will be laughing at us behind our hands.

Currently, our nuclear deterent is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the Americans. They can close it down anytime they want. I suspect that technology is in place that would prevent us firing the missiles if the Americans so wished it. I know if I were in charge of the project, that's how I'd do it.

So, let's build it here. The money otherwise going into the pockets of our allies could support new British jobs and technologies, and make use of the by-products of the nuclear industry.

Mark
Where do you get your figures? CND?
Defense Exp 2006/7 - £32.5bn

Operations £14.2bn (of which Fleet = £3.3bn)
Personnel £3.5bn
Logistics £7.9bn
Central £3.8bn
Procurement £3.9bn
Pensions £5.5bn

The cost of replacing Trident might be £10-15bn but that would be spread over period from now until 2020 so less than a £1bn per year (or 0.2% of government expenditure per annum). Put it another way replacing Trident would be less than 18% of the waste we identified.

So for less than 1/500th of our national expenditure we have a major part of our deterrent capability - equivalent deterence in conventional weaponry & people would mean a larger navy, air force & army at a higher cost.

We need to clarify who we are supposed to be deterring - Russia, China, North Korea, Iran? Only then can we decide the best deterrent.

and one nuclear sub - carrying both conventional & nuclear weapons - kept the whole of the Argentinian Fleet in dock at cost of two torpedoes.

Additionally according to Mitterand (not a good witness) "she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina — unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians. Margaret has given me very precise instructions on the telephone"

French arms sales to South America have never recovered from the fact Monsieur Mitterand belived Mrs Thatcher and handed over the codes....another benefit!

I try to always be factually correct so it pains me that the £10 billion was taken from single source (not CND) and doesn’t even stand up to common-sense checks. I was wrong on that point. However, I think that any money on renewing nuclear weapons is waste because there’s not a viable enemy.

Ignoring the NPT certainly doesn’t strengthen our case against Iran. Apart from which, nuclear attack isn’t a viable option against a country that is bordered by Iraq, Turkey, UAE, Oman, Saudi-Arabia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only realistic option for controlling Iran via military action would be through conventional weapons.

Selsdon

Who knows in 20/25 years time time - in 1980's it was the USSR & China, in 1950's the USSR, in 1930's & 1900's it would have been Germany, in 1880s France, in 1860's Russia?....

It could be Iran or Pakistan, China or India, Somalia or the Sudan, Kazakhstan and central Asia might become a threat, West Africa one. Climate change could mean a completely different range of enemies arise.

"It could be Iran or Pakistan, China or India, Somalia or the Sudan, Kazakhstan and central Asia might become a threat, West Africa one. Climate change could mean a completely different range of enemies arise."

Fish, maybe?

Prediction - New Labour will replace Trident, either by extending its life, or upgrading to a more advanced, American system. The Tories will support them in this. It's a bit of a non-issue except for the potential for encouraging an old Labour rebellion. I think that money should be spent here.

Mark

While I think using the weapons is last resort part of the Trident replacement strategy is to go for improved guidance which means less kilotons per missile. So precision targeting (yes I know not 100% efective) means that if specific highly protected targets had to be a-bombed collateral damage would be more contained.

It's the last ditch defence but thats what a deterrent is, the weapon that you will use if you are losing.

and True Blue

what I was saying is that we have no idea what the world holds in 20 years time - in 1969 I didn't expect to see the Berlin wall gone in my lifetime, in 1966 we hadn't thought about airline hijacking, within a year air travel was a target, Beirut used to be this fantastic laid back holiday resort where you could ski on Mt Lebanon shortly after drying yourself on the beaches of the Med.

We need to maintain some nuclear weapons but Trident II is not the best way.

We do need aircraft carriers with fighter cover, transport aircraft and helos, and good infantry. All of these are either in short supply or pared away. Trident II is overkill. Portillo is surely broadly right.

Can we not have the RAF and RN use Tomahawks with a nuclear warhead? This would allow us to turn Pyongyang or Tehran into rubble without breaking the bank and involving the use of useful assets rather than having anything purpose-built.

We don't need to deter the USSR any more. We don't need to damage a continent. And we do need to make sure we have the carriers and keep our infantry up to date.

Of course, for some mad reason we are building carriers to take VTOL aircraft-when the VTOL JSF seems a bit iffy, and we will not be able to make VTOL AEW planes. Why not just buy the US Navy one, and their AEW plane as well?

Ah well, no doubt will be cancelled like CVA 01 after millions blown on BaE.

Rob D - could you kindly supply us with a glossary of acronyms before we go any further ?

How can anyone possible bear the thought of the French being the only European nuclear power?!

JohnC

VTOL = Vertical Take Off and Landing
JSF = Joint Strike Fighter
AEW = Airborne Early Warning

Hope that helps

"On the moral level, how can we preach to Iran while we also contemplate ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and rearming ourselves with weapons whose use is illegal?"

Because we're us and they're them. And because Tony Blair hasn't called for Israel to be wiped off the map recently.

Currently, our nuclear deterent is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the Americans.

Untrue. The warheads were designed and manufactured in the UK. Only the delivery system was sourced from the US.

Trident is an independent system. It's not reliant on GPS, or any other navigation system the US could interfere with. Sole launch authority rests with the UK.

It is however impossible to think of many scenarios where a British leader would launch without US consultation and approval.

And the odd nuclear bomb dropped purely capriciously adds to the gaiety of nations.

I think we do need to be a bit rock and roll about this ...

"On the moral level, how can we preach to Iran while we also contemplate ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and rearming ourselves with weapons whose use is illegal?"

As the UK is a NWS (Nuclear Weapons State) under the terms of the Non-Proliferation treaty, development of further weapons by the UK and for the UK is not against that treaty.

As Iran is not a NWS and has signed the treaty. Allowing it to develop a nuclear weapons capability is directly against the letter and spirt of the treaty.

Tom that's the finest argument I've ever heard.Why didn't I think of it!

One of the great features of this site is that there is always a contributor with all the facts and figures to hand to demolish badly composed arguments. Well done (again) Ted and a lesson learned perhaps Mark.
Personally I cannot conceive why any Conservative would argue that in an ever increasingly troubled world the UK would want to consider abandoning its nuclear capability. Surely even compassionate Conservatives believe in strong defence.
It seems to me inevitable that Iran will develop a Weapon and that at some time in the future threaten to use it, either against Israel or what they perceive to be Western aggressors. Without a deterrent of our own how could we intercede? Do we leave it all to the Americans, and then just carp because we don’t like their way of dealing with things? Would we be comfortable about India Pakistan and North Korea having WMD’s while we disarm? The one thing that has kept this country invasion free in the last 50 years is the full and certain knowledge that we have the nuclear capability to wipe any aggressor off the face of the earth. Would I press the button as CND used to ask--- you bet I would.
We are facing a new cold war, the enemy this time is Islamic Fundamentalism, and we must retain our first strike capability.

"Untrue. The warheads were designed and manufactured in the UK. Only the delivery system was sourced from the US."

What are we going to do? Deliver them in person?

We don't even wholly own the missiles:

"The Trident II missiles are not actually owned outright by the UK. Instead the Trident II missiles belong to a pool of missiles managed by the United States and stored at Kings Bay, Georgia. British boats pick up their load of missiles at Kings bay when they are commissioned and exchange them there when missiles need servicing. The Trident warheads are mated to the missiles on-board the submarine at the Royal naval Armament Depot at Coulport."

If this is dependency on the US, I don't know what is. You don't see the French cruising over the States to loan out missiles. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate defense of the independent state. If we can't manufacture and service them ourselves, and instead rely on on third party, why not let the third party do the defending?

What are we going to do? Deliver them in person?

Or maybe use the ones we've already got.

And the next stupid question is?

"What are we going to do? Deliver them in person?

Or maybe use the ones we've already got.

And the next stupid question is?"

I seem to remember you boasting previously of your sense of humour. It seems to be in hiding. Read the rest of the post. There are enough issues there to demolish your contention.

I think I have established that we depend on the US for servicing and providing our nuclear delivery systems. I think that is wrong. If you disagree, explain why.

"I seem to remember you boasting previously of your sense of humour."

I've not "boasted" about anything.

"Read the rest of the post. There are enough issues there to demolish your contention."

No there aren't. The possibility of US refusing to replace missiles in the future does not mean that missiles currently deployed in Vanguard submarines cannot be used. It merely means that they could not be easily replaced.

Unless your contention is that Britain needs the right to go on a nuclear rampage, it's hard to see how this affects our defensive or first strike capability.

International Relations experts today predicted all-out nuclear war between James Hellyer and True Blue. 'This could kill us all' said Sir John Stokes.

"International Relations experts today predicted all-out nuclear war between James Hellyer and True Blue. 'This could kill us all' said Sir John Stokes."

Just let me ask the Americans for the missiles. If they say no, I'll take the warheads round myself!

Just let me ask the Americans for the missiles. If they say no, I'll take the warheads round myself!

What you don't seem to understand is that there is a Vanguard submarine at sea at all times, which is armed with Trident missiles. We don't have to go to the US and ask for them... we already have them!

"What you don't seem to understand is that there is a Vanguard submarine at sea at all times, which is armed with Trident missiles. We don't have to go to the US and ask for them... we already have them!"

Aaaargh! I give up. You simply aren't reading what I'm writing.

Aaaargh! I give up. You simply aren't reading what I'm writing.

Yes I have. That's why you are incapable of explaining why my point doesn't stand.

Having to obtain replacement missiles from the US when missiles are serviced in the future, does not mean that you cannot use the systems. What it does mean is that if you do use them, you would be unable to resupply them.

Now try again.

and I'm sure we still have the plans and capability for our nuclear depth charges , H & atom bombs if we found it necessary to recreate a completely independent nuclear strike capability.

Wonder though James if US has somewhere ability to override codes in Tridents - French never trusted co-operation with US on basis post Suez that you couldn't depend on them unless their objectives were same as yours.

The weapons the US has the ability to prevent use of are those that depend on the GPS system for navigation. If the US decided to cut off or encrypt the GPS signal, our cruise missiles would be useless (this may not be the case when the EU's Galileo and EGNOS systems come online).

By contrast, the Trident II uses an inertial guidance system. It receives inertial guidance information from the SSBN on launch and later update those with stellar sightings.

There have been claims for years that the US had the capacity to prevent a launch, but there's not one credible suggestion as to how it might be done. Any sabotage of the missiles would surely have detected after all this time.

As the UK is a NWS (Nuclear Weapons State) under the terms of the Non-Proliferation treaty, development of further weapons by the UK and for the UK is not against that treaty. -- James Hellyer

This is Article VI of the NPT:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Renewing our nuclear arsenal goes against this article. Remember that this treaty was a deal to prevent countries developing nuclear weapons. Our part of the deal was that “in good faith” we’d seek to disarm. If we go back on the deal we have to expect to be treated as self-promoting and untrustworthy.

James

See my earlier post on Exocets - inertial guidance system, active radar seeking - but French had means of disabling them ( not sure how effective in light of Sheffield & Glamorgan)

Renewing our nuclear arsenal goes against this article.

No it doesn't.

That article says we'll take part in negotiations aimed at ending arms races and bringing about multilaterla disarmamemt. It does not preclude a NWS for developing further weapons for its arsenal (although that's against the spirit of the treaty).

The last line in particular acts as "get out" clause.

Mark
I don't see a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament" anytime soon. General means US, Russia, China, France. India, Pakistan. Israel, UK, North Korea not just one party.

We can in good faith both seek a general disarmament, cessation of an arms race (Iran for example) and replace our weapons.

James - I'm sure that Lord Goldsmith could find a loophole in the finest silk but, to be clear, we are agreeing that developing new weapons is against the spirit of the NPT?

Ted,

That Mitterand quote turns up a lot, but is always unsourced as far as I can see. I therefore find it somewhat suspect.

As things stand, the exocets were used for the duration of the conflict, and US and UK intelligence operatives actively tried to disrupt resupply operations.

As such, I can't see there's much evidence for the mooted "kill switch". As you noted, it it was there, then it wasn't very effective!

We are in a dependent relationship with the US as the senior power. There ownership of the technology puts us in a weaker position. We need a truly independent deterrent. This close dependence pushes us towards poor foreign policy decisions and makes us enemies.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate defense of the independent state. If we can't manufacture and service them ourselves, and instead rely on on third party, why not let the third party do the defending?

It is interesting that the whole of this thread seems to have been conducted by males!

Perhaps they also ought to make the case for allowing the British armed forces to decide where they want to buy their weapons from. Traditionally the army has preferred to buy from America but political concerns have forced them to purchase from Europe.

It is interesting that the whole of this thread seems to have been conducted by males!
It has been all males, you know what us men are like with guns etc :)
Do join in these debates when you get a chance, Patsy.

BBC has a Q&A on this topic

Has any one ever heard of an old buffer called Nostradamus? Well, he did a lot of musing, and he posited that we should have to face "the yellow men from the East" after which, we would have a thousand years of peace. Any one think that is where we are at right now? They are all from the east after all! Being female, and utterly bored with guns and stuff, I just thought I would lighten the mood for Patsy.

I think sensible procurement would be a good defence policy to crow about-I am not going to say what the SA80 with upgrades cost but I do know it is a lot more than simply buying an M16 retail in the USA (I've seen them at $400).

The new carriers are a procurement disaster in the pipeline, also we still don't have a good, modern transport helicopter.

So much procurement is just a way to push government cash channeled to BAE.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker