Cameron backs Tony Blair on Trident

Earlier this afternoon I listed the ten peaks of David Cameron's first year as Conservative leader.  Given David Cameron's statesmanlike response to Blair's decision on Trident I think we have an eleventh high.  Pasted below is the text of David Cameron's words during this afternoon's Commons statement:

“I agree with the Prime Minister about both the substance of this decision, and about the timing.  It is a vital matter for our national security.  It requires a long-term approach.  And I hope we can work together on this issue for the good of our country.  On this side of the House, we have always believed that Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent.  And it is good to see that this is now so firmly part of a national political consensus.

When it comes to our nuclear deterrent, there are some straightforward questions to answer.

Should it be replaced?

Do we need a submarine-based system?

And does the decision need to be taken now?

Our approach to all these questions has been to answer:  “Yes”...

...On the issue of maintaining our deterrent, and therefore ordering a replacement, we believe the case is very powerful.

Those who argue that the world has changed, so that no deterrent is required, entirely miss the point.

Yes, the world has changed and yes continues to change rapidly.

That is the very case for keeping up our guard.

Just as today’s threat is so different from that predicted 20 years ago, so today we can’t predict the threat we will face in 20 years’ time.

Still less can we predict the threat in 40 to 50 years’ time, when the next generation of submarines actually will still be in service.

There are some who argue that, because the major threat is now rogue states, it is not necessary to have a submarine-based alternative.

But isn’t it the case that the replacement for Trident will cover the period 2025 to 2055, when the nature of the threat is so completely unpredictable?

It may be rogue states.

It may be major powers.

We should have a credible deterrent to both.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the key issue of deterrence is credibility, and that the key to a credible system is that it isn’t vulnerable to pre-emptive attack?

Isn’t it the case that all experts agree that, of the three options of land, air or submarine-based systems, the submarine-based system is the least vulnerable?

On the issue of timing, isn’t the key here starting the design and procurement process, so that the new submarines are available when the old ones go out of service?

Wouldn’t a further life extension programme be costly and uncertain, and potentially leave a gap?

Let me ask about four specific areas.

First, on the number of submarines, will the Prime Minister confirm that it wouldn’t be right to rule out a fourth submarine?

The French deterrent, for example, does require four submarines.

The Prime Minister said the decision will be taken when we know more about the detailed design.

Will he confirm that the decision over the fourth submarine does not actually have to be taken possibly until as late as 2020?

Second, some have raised questions of disarmament and of legality.

Does the Prime Minister agree that replacing Trident with a submarine-based system does not hinder our efforts at all to achieve multilateral nuclear disarmament?

Britain is not part of a nuclear arms race.

This is our only nuclear weapon, it is a minimum deterrent, and we have the right to replace it.

On the issue of legality, can the Prime Minister confirm that maintaining such a deterrent is entirely compatible with the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Third, there is the issue of cost.

The White Paper gives a commitment that the cost would not come at the expense of the conventional capabilities of our armed forces.

What exactly does that mean in terms of the defence budget he is currently planning?

Fourth and last, there is the issue of warheads.

Previous Conservative Governments significantly reduced the number of warheads.

The incoming Labour Government reduced them still further.

Now the Prime Minister is proposing yet another reduction.

Is he content that the new total is sufficient to maintain a credible minimum deterrent?

On this issue, as on others, will he recognise that he doesn’t have to make concessions to those in the House who do not support the theory of deterrence and who’ve never supported Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent?

Isn’t it the case that the Prime Minister is able to take the right decisions - because he knows that, if he does, he can count on our full support?”

The one disappointment is DC's failure to even mention missile defence.  There are some rogue nations who are too mad to even be deterred by M.A.D..

Related link: A Blair-Fox alliance is needed on Trident replacement.

Comments

[Josh]

Now he chooses to go against the Beeboids! Why can't he go against them on something we really like?

[Sean Fear]

Well, I think Cameron is quite right on this issue.

[Esbonio]

Seconded.

[Daniel VA]

"Isn’t it the case that the Prime Minister is able to take the right decisions - because he knows that, if he does, he can count on our full support?"

Will the party leadership allow a free vote on this issue?

[rallies]

You need 4 boats so you can realistically maintain one at sea at all times, afterall if they are all at faslane they could all be taken out in one go. Warheads, well we should be able to decimate several countries with whats held on one boat, multiplied by 4.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

The only possible decision. I'm rather concerned about any reliance we may have on another power so this is the absolute minimum.

[ToMTom]

I wonder if the Russians have gotten away with using polonium-210 elsewhere in the world. One advantage of Aldermaston is that the scientists there do know to screen for polonium and have experience of using it. But for them using scintillation detectors on the urine sample noone would have been sure about this little stunt.

As long as Russia exists we need nuclear weapons - they go through these phases of opening up to The West and then retreat into a long dark sulk which makes life very uncertain

[Opinicus]

Replacing Trident is a no brainer.

We have no idea what the world will be like in 25 - 50 years but it will not be safe for Britain. If we have nuclear weapons we have an unanswerable weapon against threats of invasion or switching off our power supplies or any significant threat. All we need is the possibility that we might weild it.

CND was the only political movement of the 20th Century shown to be completely, provably false. CND were simply wrong and Reagan and Thatcher were right. That these people should dare to put their heads up now is beyond belief. That they should be listended to or given a platform by the media is beneath contempt. Is there to be no prize for being right, no stigma for collosal moral and political failure?

Despite all the platitudes, all the niceness, all the reasonable liberal sentiment of 21st century politics, the eternal truth remains; Only power makes nations powerful and secure.

[Modern Conservative]

I'm pleased Cameron didn't mention missile defence as we're not going to build it ourselves and apart from the Editor I don't think they're is anyone who thinks this is a burning issue.

If Cameron starting talking about Missile Defence he'd look as if he was being guided in his foreign policy thinking from the Whitehouse, and we certainly don't want that.

[matt wright]

I think any sign of weakness would be disastrous. There is much going on in the world and many possible threats. As DC says who knows what threats there will be in 30 or 50 years time. I have to assume all possibilities have been looked at eg alternatives to submarine launch etc but it seem logical to stay with submarine based and missiles. The sad thing is that once a weapon is invented it can't be un-invented. If we hadn't had machine guns we would hardly have resisted Nazism and the same fate in the concentration camps that the Jews sadly faced from 1939 to 45. I wish that nuclear weapons did not exist, they are horrendous and whenever I discuss such issues I cannot escape the thoughts of how destructive they are. It would be great if humans were above such things but our Govt (whatever colour) has a duty to protect us,

Matt

[Cllr Keith Standring]

Our Editor has done us proud by posting the response from DC. It is well known that I'm not an admirer of DC, but on this occasion he has surpassed himself and spoken sensibly. I am confident his response will resonate with millions in our Nation.

I strongly recommend Liam Fox's presentation to the First Defence fringe meeting at this year's Conservative Party Conference. The material on which it's based can be found at:
http://www.firstdefence.org/funding_the_threat.doc

[Editor]

I think you're right Modern Conservative, I do seem to be almost the only person here who is seriously interested in missile defence!

[poll watcher]

No Ed. I am amazed that any poster thought there was a remote chance that DC would not back this. He is Conservative as well as compassionate. This is robust language demanding Blair go further in our defence. In the last two weeks we have seen a call for an elimination of the marriage tax penalty, prison building, Trident replacement, far lower immigration limits and a study on the effects of immigration on social cohesion as well as a demand to stop taxing what is good ie the family and business.

[John Irvine]

"He is Conservative as well as compassionate"

You could have fooled me.

But isn't Cameron running the risk of upsetting his new lefty peacenik friends?

[Josh]

"Is there to be no prize for being right, no stigma for collosal moral and political failure?"

The socialists are still about, what does that say?

[changetowin]

Cameron was probably scared of being painted as soft by Labour is he took a stand on this issue.

Many of us doubt whether this costly project really faces up to the threats we face today. Wouldn't we be better putting this money into intelligence?

[Sean Fear]

Why am I not surprised by that last post?

Is there anything that you have vaguely right wing opinions on, ChangetoWin?

[changetowin]

Wasting taxpayers money on large useless projects is not something I associate with the right, Mr Fear...

[Richard Weatherill]

"Wouldn't we be better putting this money into intelligence?"

Well, at least that way we'd know when North Korea or Iran was about to launch a nuclear strike, even if we couldn't do much about it.

BTW, Tim, is your attachment to a missile defence system instead of, or in addition to, a nuclear deterrent?

[comstock]

"If we hadn't had machine guns we would hardly have resisted Nazism and the same fate in the concentration camps that the Jews sadly faced from 1939 to 45."

Utterly irrelveant. Why? Well, the second world war was an all out war fought using the best weapons available at the time, and, despite the horrendous losses on both sides, there was a 'winner'. Luckily it was us. And at the end, there was still a Germany and a Britain left to rebuild, and at least some of the Jews were still alive to save.

Now lets fast foward......had the 2nd world war been fought say 30 years later, the best available weapons would surely (might have taken a little longer but by that point it would have been discovered anyway) have included A-bombs and H-bombs. There would have been NO winner- no loser. No nothing in fact, all out nuclear war is unwinnable.

If you'll forgive the movie quotation, the only way to win that game is not to play.

[Michael Jackson]

Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)have repeatedly declared their intention to 'undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament'. They have declared their desire to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons.

Is it not time for a reality check here? My personal view is that the UK should be leading the way towards fulfilment of these declared objectives, not preparing to commit more money towards long-term retention of an independent nuclear arsenal. Such a strategy seems to be at variance with the spirit of the NPT. At the very least, let us have a proper debate on the subject.

Full marks to Mohammed ElBaradei, leader of the UN nuclear watchdog, for having the moral courage to point out the inconsistency in having nine countries that seek to maintain their monopoly of nuclear weapons, making no progress towards their disarmament obligations, whilst simultaneously trying to curb the nuclear ambitions of countries like Iran.

[RobinClash]

Comstock,

An entirely reasonable and sensible argument, to which I agree whole heartedly.

We don't need it because we will never use it unilaterally, so why not put the cash into conventional forces. This equals more jobs in the manufacturing sector, more in the armed forces, and use the brilliant scientists at AWE for something useful and profitable.

[RobinClash]

Comstock,

An entirely reasonable and sensible argument, to which I agree whole heartedly.

We don't need it because we will never use it unilaterally, so why not put the cash into conventional forces. This equals more jobs in the manufacturing sector, more in the armed forces, and use the brilliant scientists at AWE for something useful and profitable.

[Ted]

Pleasing for once to be able to agree completely with Sean Fear and even esbonio! I can understand the critics as regards MAD and the expense but IMHO it would be endangering this country to unilaterally disarm.

As regards conventional forces there is an and theory here - why not spend more or spend what we have more efficiently. I looked up the per capita spending of UK per serviceman as compared to other countries. Unsuprisingly we spend more for less - much like the NHS, education. The administrative overhead and waste in procurement accounts for a great deal of this. There is a case for a UK aerospace & arms industry but not for the vanity European projects like Eurofighter (and why did we invest in that as well as the F-35?). A drastically slimmed down MOD, with improved procurement of off the shelf best of breed armaments would allow more spending on frontline.

I've no doubt that the Conservatives will be equally supportive to adopting missile defence if it comes to a vote - not suprising DC didn't mention it as the debate is about Trident not Star Wars II.