The Tory leader was speaking at his monthly press conference.
MORE SOON.
10.30am, Highlights from Mr Cameron's press conference
On Trident and defence cuts: Mr Cameron was asked on three occcasions about making savings from the defence budget. He said that the Conservative Party supported all of the items currently in the 'forward defence programme' but given the scale of the budgetary crisis would not say if the aircraft carrier and Trident programmes were still affordable. I'm not going to start ruling things in and out, he continued. In the FT this morning David Davis had questioned the affordability of Trident.
On today's votes on expenses: Mr Cameron said the Conservative frontbench would abstain from the vote on second jobs disclosure because it is badly drafted, but added that he supports the principle of it. PoliticsHome has more on this aspect.
On the 50p tax band: He agreed with Fraser Nelson that the 50p tax band was bad for Britain but declined to agree that it might lose the Treasury money. He didn't know for sure, he said. In a follow up question Fraser Nelson said that rich people would not change their plans and move abroad if they knew that the 50p band would be repealed by a Conservative government. Mr Cameron said that he would not make a commitment now and that 50p would have to join a queue of other bad Labour measures that the Conservatives wished to repeal.
On working with Nick Clegg: He said that yesterday's victory on Gurkhas was hugely important and said that the Conservatives will work with the Liberal Democrats on issues of common interest, such as the environment, strengthening local govenment and opposing the surveillance state.
On Obama's first 100 days: He declined to comment on the American President's domestic policies but paid tribute to a "pretty successful" foreign policy. He highlighted an end to torture, the promised closure of Gitmo, the re-engineering of strategy in Afghanistan and engagement with Iran.
On Margaret Thatcher's thirtieth anniversary: I asked if he would be marking the anniversary in any way and if he was studying how she prepared for government... As Mr Cameron started to answer a military band started playing and marched past the window... Mr Cameron credited Andy Coulson with arranging the march past! After the journalists' laughter had died down he said that the best way of honouring Margaret Thatcher was to elect another Tory government. Yes, he was studying the period - the things she got right but also the things that were wrong including the decision to honour Labour's public pay commitments from the Clegg Commission that delayed the necessary fiscal adjustment until 1981.
Tim Montgomerie
25 billion pounds that replacing Trident will cost, surely the money can be better spent on something else? Like refurbish our crumbling schools, or cutting the debt mountain, or cleaning up our hospitals, or scrapping Labour's increase in national insurance that will hit everybody earning over 20,000 a year. Do the right thing Mr Cameron.
Posted by: P Sixsmith | April 30, 2009 at 09:56
I think its now a better than evens bet, that the Trident replacement and the 2 aircraft carriers will be the first in line for the Cameron cuts.
Posted by: david1 | April 30, 2009 at 10:06
We should continue with Trident if we wish to continue to live in a country whose word stands for something. The only reason we are a member of the permananent five, and the only reason we enjoy a special relationship with the United States is because we maintain certain two key forces, the Strategic Nuclear deterrent and a Royal Navy with an expeditionary capability. If we want to become a backward social democratic northern European island constantly a hostage to fortune and entirely dependent on the defences of others for the protection of our interests then we'd do damn silly things like scrap Trident.
Trident is to me worth a fight with the Unions over public sector pay and pensions. There are other cuts which should be made before Trident.
I hope David Cameron has said what he has said only because he wants to be seen to be taking a tough line on public expenditure, but when he reaches office he'll want to take a similarly tough line on defending Britain's interests. Trident is not a military weapon; it’s a political tool which buys us influence, which is why we should maintain a credible deterrent.
There is only one type of viable nuclear deterrent and that is Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. With everything else the launch platform is too easily located and disabled or the projectile to easily shot down.
There really isn't a cheaper deterrent than Trident, because no other system is secure enough to actually deter.
Posted by: Will Yoxall | April 30, 2009 at 10:08
There needs to be some clear thinking about this.
The key question is do we independently need the option to be able to guarantee the destruction of a number of major Russian cities , including Moscow by overwhelming ABM defences, after the destruction in a first strike of the United Kingdom without US help ? Because that's what Tridents for. ( Some will argue it can't be used without US say so - in which case the role of being a nuclear power could be achieved much more cheaply with different systems ).
If we need to be able to strike back against states like Iran and North Korea then different and cheaper systems are perhaps indicated.
This needs to be worked though very carefully from first principles.
Posted by: Man in a Shed | April 30, 2009 at 10:10
Re: David 1
If that were the case then David Cameron is not the intelligent man I thought he was.
Posted by: Will Yoxall | April 30, 2009 at 10:12
Here's an idea for Trident. Why don't we invite the othe rCommonwealth countries to contribute to it's development and delivery. We could have, say. India contributing 10%, Australia 10%, Canada 10%, some of the smaller countries 2% each etc etc. That would raise the money to pay for the deterrant and the quid pro quo would be that we sign a mutual defense pact and commit to use Trident against any enemies of the Commonwealth.
Good idea??
Posted by: rightwingery | April 30, 2009 at 10:22
Rightwingery @ 1022
Not really a good idea no, who would decide when weapons could be used. Britain requires a sovereign, viable nuclear deterrent and sovereignty is indivisible.
Posted by: Will Yoxall | April 30, 2009 at 10:31
rightwingery, that is a pretty good idea. Of course it could be difficult to make it work. Would part of the crew come from these nations and what of the Commonwealth nations that are less reliable. There is also the vexing issue of "what if" a nuclear strike hits one of these nations would there be a Veto, who would hold the keys. Its a nice idea but I suspect in practice it would be very hard to get the agreements in place.
Trident is not essential, but maybe the answer is rather than scrapping the procurement we put it off for a decade or so?
Posted by: Ross Warren | April 30, 2009 at 10:34
Britain's current dependence on the USA to provide the missile component of the nuclear deterrent is not necessarily the best choice which we should make. However, the reality is that it has comprised the sea borne (and since 1998 the only component) arm of our nuclear deterrent for many years since Polaris entered service in 1969. Therefore, whilst it could be considered undesirable to be so closely reliant on a foreign power, however benign, that very closeness could in fact cement the Anglo-American relationship in other ways and bring real benefits to the UK. Again though, there would be nothing to stop the UK opting for a fully independent deterrent were she to wish to. However, what is completely unacceptable - and I do not believe for a moment that it would happen under a Conservative Government - is for Britain to unilaterally give up her nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Giles Clifton | April 30, 2009 at 10:37
It's a waste of money. As far as defence matters are concerned i'm very much to the right of the party, as is David Davis. However, it would never, ever be used! Never! Even if we did use it in a retaliatory capacity, we're already dead, and if we weren't dead on the first strike we'd be second. So we'd never used it, and everyone knows we'd never use it. Personally i think that Trident should be cancelled and instead of any kind of replacement or using the money to pay down debt, the extra money should be used to bulk up conventional forces. Strategically much more useful!
Posted by: Ben | April 30, 2009 at 10:40
Ross Warren @1034
What would we do when the Vanguard class decommission? Wait ten years for the replacement? i.e. have no deterrent for a decade? We have to sort this now you can't just pop down the Nuclear weapon shop when you need a few Kilotons of diplomatic pressure.
Posted by: Will Yoxall | April 30, 2009 at 10:41
The new trident submarines will be built as will the new carriers. If you think otherwise then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The carriers have already been paid for, the JSF program is dependent on british invlovement and the royal navy has surrendered all but 8 crappy submarines and 6 crappy frigates in order to get them. Can you really imaging a conservative government saying no to obama, no to some extraordinarily angry admirals and no to scottish unions?
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 10:47
Nukes are a cold-war hangover and are not needed to wage asymmetric war.
We should use the money to invest in intelligence, AEW and surveillance, body armour and troop transport. Anything left over can go to our debt repayments.
If we keep nukes, we've no right to tell Iran or North Korea they can't have them.
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | April 30, 2009 at 10:49
Ben @ 1040
Having a large number of conventional forces does not carry political weight, and in Britain's case 30,000 extra troops (or however many) in the Army wouldn't make a huge difference to our geostrategic position whereas having nuclear weapons (or rather not having them) does make a difference.
By virtue of being one of the few nations on this earth who could bring about the apocalypse we have a veto in the UN security council - that veto is worth the price of renewing Trident.
Trident is a political tool not a military weapon.
Posted by: Will Yoxall | April 30, 2009 at 10:49
Defence is the primary role for Government.
Ringfence the absurdly inefficient and filthy NHS and start cutting into the heart of our defence? Not the act of a conservative by my book.
Cut the quangoes, the IT projects, the civil service, foreign aid, the 'advisors' and everything else before this.
The entire ministry of sport and the Department for Education could go for a start (vouchers and the market would sort that one out)
Grow a pair David
Posted by: Treacle | April 30, 2009 at 10:50
"We should use the money to invest in intelligence, AEW and surveillance, body armour and troop transport."
You think this money will stay in the defence budget?
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 10:51
Our armed forces have been cut to the bone over the last ten years. Gordon Brown's refusal to commit more troops to Afghanistan, which he admits is the biggest threat from terrorism, on the basis of cost lets us down, the army down and is cowardly and shameful.
We may need to fight other wars in the future and we may be subjected to nuclear blackmail be emerging countries.
We need properly equipped armed forces that can fulfill their foreseable roles.
The funding for the armed forces must be increased at the expense of other programs. £20bn for Trident, £4.5 bn for carriers against £100 bn/pa for health, £180bn/pa for Social Security.Cut 2% from health, 3.5% of SS and fund the defence budget.
We have become so brainwashed by Labour on being "caring" and believing passionately in socia issues that defence has become a dirty word. We ignore it at our peril.
Posted by: rcs | April 30, 2009 at 11:04
If we leave the EU we can then afford Trident and many other things too, like lower taxes.
The three main parties are conspiring to prevent this being considered. They all believe in Euroland.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | April 30, 2009 at 11:12
Tim,
It seems a pretty pathetic press conference. The country is facing a massive financial crisis,huge unemployment,public finances out of control,hordes of immigrants smuggling themselves into the UK and the questions the hacks ask about are-
Trident completely irrelevant financially would pay intered on debt for a few days
Mps expenses not cutting them but some absurd register of outside jobs
Not promising to repeal the 50 p tax rate when it is wrong. Amazing this-Cameron can tell us which taxes he will keep but not which public spending needs to be cut
The dreamworld continues
Posted by: Anthony Scholefield | April 30, 2009 at 11:18
This guff about Trident is a total red herring. We have it: whatever Cameron wants, he won't actually get rid of it. So whether or not he delays signing off on its eventual replacement, it's simply a choice betwen that and doing what we did with the Polaris boats and Chevaline, namely extending the life of the current system and passing the buck on a final decision on replacement. For to repeat, there's no way a British government, least of all a Tory one, will be able to abandon nuclear weapons (and quite right too). Hence the real issue here - and it's fundamental to our future foreign policy - is the fate of the things we *don't* have: the carriers. Fox's threat to resign if they're not commissioned is one everyone with a semblance of right wing patriotism should support. And since Labour will certainly have 'cut steel' before they leave office (ie meaning we would have to waste money by abandoning a project that was already well under way, were we stupid enough to resile from our commitment to build the two QEs), and, signed up to a doubtless penalty clause-laden agreement on the planes, it's near certain that it won't actually be possible to welch on this particular procurement project and save any money.
Posted by: ACT | April 30, 2009 at 11:28
There are various estimates for the full cost of our EU membership, mostly ranging between £50 billion a year and £250 billion a year.
£150 billion a year, in the centre of the range, seems plausible.
That doesn't mean that we would immediately be better off by that much each year, as the burden of costs has gradually built up over nearly four decades, and so it would take decades for the country to fully recover.
The sooner we leave, the sooner we can start that process of recovery.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | April 30, 2009 at 11:33
@ Will Yoxall
I see your point, it just seems that this particular political tool comes at the expense of the military capacity (i.e. the weapon) that we need, and at a time when we can ill afford it. I'm also not convinced that seat on the security council is actually worth anything at the moment given the paralysis of the UN as a whole. It seems to me that for trident to be worth its price as a political tool the power of the UN must be restored and increased. It needs to focus on what it was made for, preventing war rather than its now diverse political agenda.
I'd also like to say that from my chair it is easy to say scrap trident, but if i were in David Camerons chair i'm not sure i'd have the balls, and therefore have respect for both sides of this argument!
Posted by: Ben | April 30, 2009 at 11:35
What is point of us having these aricraft carriers? Does anyone really think an aircraft carrier will do us any good in any way? If we have international military commitments, they will be fairly useless.
While we have te continued capability of utterly destroying almost any combination of enemies you can imagine with our nuclear deterrent, why do we need to find an expensive replacement?
I find it very strange that Tories will cut health and education, but are always happy to spend more and more on prisons and the military. If you are so into cuts, and efficiency savings, why not start with the military?
Posted by: resident leftie | April 30, 2009 at 11:40
I always enjoy your contributions, but what evidence do you really have for this - "I find it very strange that Tories will cut health and education"? Thatcher's government didn't, not did Major's. The last British government to actually make real spending cuts in either area was Callaghan's. And for all that I admired David Owen, I'm not sure I entirely want everything else that another three years of Sunny Jimmery would entail.
Posted by: ACT | April 30, 2009 at 11:45
Does anyone really think an aircraft carrier will do us any good in any way?
Being an island nation with overseas possessions and almost completely being reliant on sea trade, aircraft carriers are a good thing.
But then anyone with a drop of understanding on modern military affairs would know that....
Posted by: Raj | April 30, 2009 at 12:00
"If you are so into cuts, and efficiency savings, why not start with the military?"
Because defence of the realm is the first priority of any government and the military has already been cut to the bone over the past decade.
Posted by: RichardJ | April 30, 2009 at 12:01
@resident leftie @ 11:40
>>I find it very strange that Tories will cut health and education, but are always happy to spend more and more on prisons and the military. If you are so into cuts, and efficiency savings, why not start with the military?<<
As far as I'm aware they haven't yet invented a hospital or a school which is immune to military bombing. So if you want to keep them intact, you need to be able to defend yourself.
'Efficiency savings' can be done everywhere, including the military. As for cuts, military, school and hospitals need proper funding. Your typical lefty spin notwithstanding, there are all sorts of ways to save huge money that don't involve fewer nurses and teachers. As I'm sure you are aware.
I have no problem with pacifists and peace-lovers. But as soon as the trouble starts its always them who are the first to cry for help. "Save me, Save me," loses its potency when your guardian has been defanged and declawed. You might think about that.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | April 30, 2009 at 12:03
Why do we need Aircraft carriers?
I’ll let this quote from a new book ‘Phoenix Squadron’ by Rowland White speak for itself:
“It would have been nice to have had a few more Harriers but I’d have preferred it if we had the Ark Royal (*), but then again, if we’d had the old Ark Royal and all her aircraft I don’t think the Argentines would have invaded in the first place”
Corporal Stuart Russell, 2 PARA, speaking after the Falklands War.
* Ark Royal was Britain’s last fixed wing conventional carrier armed with Buccaneer and Phantom jets.
‘Phoenix Squadron’ is about an operation in 1972 when Ark Royal was despatched to deter an invasion of Belize (then a British colony). The threat of massive concentrated airpower did just that.
Posted by: John Gough (PPC Barrow & Furness) | April 30, 2009 at 12:12
"it just seems that this particular political tool comes at the expense of the military capacity"
it doesn't though. The money spent on trident would not be spent on any other part of the military if trident were to be scrapped.
"What is point of us having these aricraft carriers? Does anyone really think an aircraft carrier will do us any good in any way?"
Thats not the issue. The navy begged for them and was given hoops to jump through. If the navy did exactly what it was told, if the navy accpeted the very deep cuts in its operational capability, if the navy kept quiet and slashed its budget, then it could use the money already planned for frigates and submarines, on the aircraft carriers. The navy has fulfilled its part of the bargain, PAYMENT DUE!
But if you insiston a reason then we need them to protect the falkland islands.
"While we have te continued capability of utterly destroying almost any combination of enemies you can imagine with our nuclear deterrent, why do we need to find an expensive replacement?"
It isn't a replacement, it is a life extension. The second phase, if you will. The new submarines will take it to the end of it's life in 2040, as was always the plan when Mrs Thatcher signed off on it.
"If you are so into cuts, and efficiency savings, why not start with the military?"
We did, and the cuts have continued year on year since they started in the early 1990s.
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 12:13
"it just seems that this particular political tool comes at the expense of the military capacity"
it doesn't though. The money spent on trident would not be spent on any other part of the military if trident were to be scrapped.
"What is point of us having these aricraft carriers? Does anyone really think an aircraft carrier will do us any good in any way?"
Thats not the issue. The navy begged for them and was given hoops to jump through. If the navy did exactly what it was told, if the navy accpeted the very deep cuts in its operational capability, if the navy kept quiet and slashed its budget, then it could use the money already planned for frigates and submarines, on the aircraft carriers. The navy has fulfilled its part of the bargain, PAYMENT DUE!
But if you insiston a reason then we need them to protect the falkland islands.
"While we have te continued capability of utterly destroying almost any combination of enemies you can imagine with our nuclear deterrent, why do we need to find an expensive replacement?"
It isn't a replacement, it is a life extension. The second phase, if you will. The new submarines will take it to the end of it's life in 2040, as was always the plan when Mrs Thatcher signed off on it.
"If you are so into cuts, and efficiency savings, why not start with the military?"
We did, and the cuts have continued year on year since they started in the early 1990s.
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 12:14
That was a terrible press conference.
Cameron says the 50p tax is bad? Why? If he is in no hurry to scrap it, it can't think the 'bad' is really that bad.
And ringfencing the entire NHS spend but potentially cutting defence.
We need to get rid of Brown now, but I do fear for a Britain ruled by Cameron and Osborne.
At least we will have the chance to get rid of them internally in a coup post-election I suppose.
Posted by: ToryBlog.com | April 30, 2009 at 12:25
The Carriers are needed if you are not willing to garrison the Falklands in such a way that it can withstand siege of repel invasion for about 6 months.
The problem is that Aircraft carriers are becoming increasingly vulnerable. The US Navy has refused to build any more until they can solve the problem of the latest Russian anti-ship missiles ( on sale to all good rogue regimes at the right price ).
The Royal Navy doesn't have the escorts or supply line to operate them unilaterally. And they are so big that they will be ruinously costly to operate and we will never be able to really risk them in conflict ( and you need at least 3 anyway to be credible ).
Posted by: Man in a Shed | April 30, 2009 at 12:28
If we were going to genuinely transform the military to focus on counter-insurgency then people should support scrapping Trident. But given that the money saved on Trident will just be spent funding public health campaigns and welfare we should oppose it. It will be yet another step towards our final acceptance that we are a joke country.
Posted by: Keep Trident - End Welfare | April 30, 2009 at 12:31
Posted by: Steve Tierney | April 30, 2009 at 12:03
Why have you conflated making some savings in the defense budget with pacifism? Our defense budget is enormous and disproportionate on a world scale. I'm no pacifist. I just don't think that it provides the best value for money in terms of protecting us from the threat of terrorism, and other threats to our security, either.
Posted by: John Gough (PPC Barrow & Furness) | April 30, 2009 at 12:12
If the then Tory goverment had listened to military intelligence and not cancelled the patrols, they would never have invaded - and that would have been a lot cheaper than an aircraft carrier. A single submarine could prevent any invasion more effectively than any aircraft carrier.
Thomas,
An much cheaper upgrade will do the trick. The existing submarines are perfectly capable of keeping us going for many years.
Posted by: resident leftie | April 30, 2009 at 12:31
An much cheaper upgrade will do the trick. The existing submarines are perfectly capable of keeping us going for many years.
How many years, and what information from military sources are you basing that on? You DO realise that even under current planning assumptions the new SSBNs wouldn't be available for service until the 2020s. Or did you think we could pop down to IKEA to get them if we realised in 2022 that Vanguard was past its prime?
Do you now accept that there is an argument behind needing aircraft carriers?
Posted by: Raj | April 30, 2009 at 12:57
"An much cheaper upgrade will do the trick. The existing submarines are perfectly capable of keeping us going for many years."
They were designed to last 20 years, with a 5 year extension if anything went wrong. If we had designed 40 year subs like the americans did then they would have cost twice as much. The submarines we currently have will become dangerous after 25 years.
Would you risk one sinking in the middle of the atlantic?
"Our defense budget is enormous and disproportionate on a world scale."
We live in the united kingdom, not the people's repuclic of china. Our defence budget is enormous because everything in this country is expensive.
We may have the worlds second largest defence budget (officially, but then again nobody in their right mind would believe the chinese and russian figures) but we cannot buy what other countries can.
We also have to defend many more islands than any other country on every continent, in every ocean.
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 13:04
Trident is justified even if only as a reminder of what governments are capable of and how close we have been to it.
Maggies very finest achievement was with Reagan and Gorbachev - ending any immediate nuclear threat.
Thank goodness my kids can worry about phoney man-made global warming rather than worrying about being vaporised for reasons that they wouldn't understand.
A bit of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere doesn't really compare to tons of radioactive fallout. Threads.
Posted by: pp | April 30, 2009 at 13:38
As Gen Sir Rupert Smith says in his influential book 'The Utility of Force', "nuclear weapons banish industrial war."
The nuclear weapon is the most successful weapon system ever. It was designed not to be used and WWII aside it never has been; it has consistently achieved its design aims. And if you doubt that go ask India and Pakistan; they would have been at each other's throats long ago but for them.
If you want to contribute to the misery and the enormous costs of preparation for industrial war get rid of them.
If you want to lay claim to any pretence of air power then you need carriers. Go and read about the RAF's eight Blackbuck missions and the effort it required to land what turned out to be one bomb on the runway at Stanley. It was truly heroic but hardly sensible. Examine the performance of the US Carriers in the Gulf Wars particularly during bad weather when land bases were closed down - the carriers just moved to where it was better and continued flying.
The two proposed Carriers are not some whim of the Navy eager for prestige or a proper carriage for Admirals to ride around in; they came out of the Strategic Defence Review of 1998 which was underpinned by a war game in defence (of all places) Poland. The outcome was that airbases were overwhelmed and the carriers, hiding in the south Baltic survived and continued to launch their missions.
Posted by: Colin | April 30, 2009 at 13:51
They were designed to last 20 years, with a 5 year extension if anything went wrong. If we had designed 40 year subs like the americans did then they would have cost twice as much. The submarines we currently have will become dangerous after 25 years.
Would you risk one sinking in the middle of the atlantic?
I'd be very worried if they didn't sink - they are submarines, after all!
You are a past master at setting up a false dilemma. It's not a choice between massively expensive new submarines and the destruction of our armed forces as we know them. An upgrade is acknowledged as a possibilty. Do you suggest we scrap the Harrier, which is long overdue for replacement?
"An much cheaper upgrade will do the trick. The existing submarines are perfectly capable of keeping us going for many years."
They were designed to last 20 years, with a 5 year extension if anything went wrong. If we had designed 40 year subs like the americans did then they would have cost twice as much. The submarines we currently have will become dangerous after 25 years.
Would you risk one sinking in the middle of the atlantic?
Posted by: resident leftie | April 30, 2009 at 14:01
This abysmal Press Conference simply confirms the view that Mr Cameron is not a conservative, simply a patrician, left-leaning liberal.
Would that some cataclysmic political event remove Mr Cameron and little Gidders from the leadership of a once-great party.
Posted by: John Coles | April 30, 2009 at 14:20
@Tory Blog and John Coles
Let me assure you that, if for some reason that I cannot forsee, the leadership election were to be re run, I would NOT be voting for any candidate that you are likely to support!
My hunch is that your candidate would gain so few votes that he would be humiliated!
Please, now, finally, ACCEPT the Conservative party members' verdict. Cameron is here to stay and is proving to be an outstanding leader!
DC will make an excellent Prime Minister. I don't want a change of leadership! I want a general election!
Posted by: Freddy | April 30, 2009 at 15:04
Is there a video anywhere of this press conference? Would love to see the military band marching past!
Posted by: Steven | April 30, 2009 at 15:04
"I'd be very worried if they didn't sink - they are submarines, after all!"
Very witty, if technically not true.
"You are a past master at setting up a false dilemma."
You flatter me.
"It's not a choice between massively expensive new submarines and the destruction of our armed forces as we know them."
Who said it was?
"An upgrade is acknowledged as a possibilty."
By whom? certainly nobody who has even the slightest knowledge of the subject at hand. It is IMPOSSIBLE. I'm not sure who told you that it was. But the cheapest option is an imroved vanguard class of NEW submarines.
"Do you suggest we scrap the Harrier, which is long overdue for replacement?"
My understanding is that the BAE Harrier II Gr9 is due for replacement in 2017 and has been ever since the contracts to build them were signed. Besides, they will be replaced in 2012, 5 years early.
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 15:07
We should first consider who are our enemies. Nuclear submarines were required when we faced a Russian threat I think I am correct in saying.
The threats facing this country, and the world in general, surely are shortage of drinking water, fuel and food.
The shortage of water in Iraq caused by Turkish action near the sources of the river is already affecting the drying up of the marshes in Iraq.
We don't need nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, but surely require a mobile, well armed, tactical force able to act quickly.
We also need to remember that every major military project seems to come in years late and massively over budget.
Posted by: Caroline Strafford | April 30, 2009 at 15:54
Caroline Strafford @ 1554
In the naval sphere aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are exactly the things which allow expeditionary operations.
If we face an enemy in the future and we have to go to him aircraft carriers provide a platform for air operations which does not require host nation support, also if the enemy i question has even a modest navy they are going to be hunting our aircraft carriers because they know we need them to win. Our submarines would play a key role in defending our ships by sinking enemy submarines and ships.
To say that we only need nuclear submarines to face a Russian threat is very silly thing to say. Nuclear submarines are enablers. Cast your mind back to 1982, the actions of one SSN kept Argentina's navy in port after the Belgrano was sunk. Argentina was frightened of losing most or all of its naval power to the RN's force of 5 SSNs in the South Atlantic.
Also in a real sense mobility and even speed in military affairs still rests on maritime power, only very small operations with lightweight equipment can be sustained by air, whereas naval frces can deliver a package of force ready to go (i.e. an aircraft carrier could be bombing targets weeks before you set up an airbase with stores, spares and heavy equipment). Don't confuse mobility with how fast aircarft and vehicles can go.
Posted by: Will Yoxall | April 30, 2009 at 17:35
I think the military would gladly give up Trident in the morning if it was up to them. Staying in the strategic nuclear game has distorted our defence policy since the mid 1960's. SSBN systems like Trident require a significant support infrastructure to operate, you could have a far cheaper and flexible deterrent force based on cruise missiles. The Navy's Tomahawk and the RAF's Storm Shadow missiles can be adapted to take a nuclear warhead. They wouldn't have the range of Trident but they would be far more effective to operate and a future Royal Navy carrier strike group with these missiles would be a powerful deterrent force that could operate nearly anyway in the world.
So I say yes, cancel Trident, go for cruise missiles and use the savings to ensure that the carriers are built and that they have sufficient escorts and aircraft to make them a credible deterrent force.
Posted by: The Watcher | April 30, 2009 at 17:38
Caroline
We don't need nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, but surely require a mobile, well armed, tactical force able to act quickly.
1. We do need nuclear-powered submarines. Every major power in the world is making or trying to make them, regardless of whether they face an immediate miltiary threat. Only Japan is not looking into them.
What you are talking about is nuclear-powered BALLISTIC MISSILE submarines.
All I can say is that with a nuclear arsenal, you have to have it all the time and plan decades ahead, because you can't pop down to IKEA or Argos to get it if things get a bit tight.
2. If your "rapid reaction force" needs to get to a place where they are no friendly-held airbases, how are you going to get there?
By sea.
And what are aicraft carriers good at doing?
Protecting naval forces.
So without carriers you are proposing is having a military force that can only deploy to friendly areas by air. Which would rather limit your options for responding to military problems, wouldn't it?
We also need to remember that every major military project seems to come in years late and massively over budget.
Normally because politicians keep changing their minds as to what they want and accept low-balling bids because they're too stupid to think that they're not honest.
If the next government accepts realistic budgets and stop changing requirements, procurement will be a lot better.
Posted by: Raj | April 30, 2009 at 17:41
Far from representing or effecting national pride or independence, our nuclear weapons programme has only ever represented and effected the wholesale subjugation of Britain's defence capability to a foreign power. That power maintains at least no less friendly relations with numerous other countries, almost none of which have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons (like radiological, chemical and biological weapons) are morally repugnant simply in themselves. They offer not the slightest defence against a range of loosely-knit, if at all connected, terrorist organisations pursuing a range of loosely-knit, if at all connected, aims in relation to a range of countries while actually governing no state. Where would any such organisation keep nuclear weapons in the first place?
Furthermore, the possession of nuclear weapons serves to convey to terrorists and their supporters that Britain wishes to "play with the big boys", thereby contributing to making Britain a target for the terrorist activity against which such weapons are defensively useless. It is high time for Britain to grow up.
Britain's permanent seat on the UN Security Council could not be taken away without British consent, and so does not depend in any way on her possession of nuclear weapons; on the contrary, the world needs and deserves a non-nuclear permanent member of that Council.
Most European countries do not have nuclear weapons, and nor does Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Are these therefore in greater danger? On the contrary, the London bombings of 7th July 2005 were attacks on a country with nuclear weapons, while the attacks of 11th September 2001 were against the country with by far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The only "nuclear power" in the Middle East is Israel. Is Israel the most secure state in the Middle East?
It is mind-boggling to hear people go on about Iran, whose President is in any case many years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and in any case only wants one (if he does) to use against the only Middle Eastern country that already has them. What does any of this have to do with us?
Numerous Tories with relevant experience – Anthony Head, Peter Thorneycroft, Nigel Birch, Aubrey Jones – were sceptical about, or downright hostile towards, British nuclear weapons in the Fifties and Sixties. In March 1964, while First Lord of the Admiralty and thus responsible for Polaris, George Jellicoe suggested that Britain might pool her nuclear deterrent with the rest of NATO. Enoch Powell denounced the whole thing as not just anything but independent in practice, but also immoral in principle.
For that matter, the Campaign for Democratic Socialism explicitly supported the unilateral renunciation of Britain's nuclear weapons, and the document Policy for Peace, on which Gaitskell eventually won his battle at the 1961 Labour Conference, stated: "Britain should cease the attempt to remain an independent nuclear power, since that neither strengthens the alliance, nor is it now a sensible use of our limited resources."
Unilateral nuclear disarmament did not cause the secession of the SDP, since it did not become Labour Party policy until two years and a General Election after that direct intervention in the British electoral process by a President of the European Commission as such, a true betrayal of Gaitskell, Bevan, Bevin, Attlee, the lot.
Diverting enormous sums of money towards public services, and towards the relief of poverty at home and abroad, precisely by reasserting control over our own defence capability, would represent a most significant step towards One Nation politics, with an equal emphasis on the One and on the Nation.
Posted by: David Lindsay | April 30, 2009 at 17:46
An interesting account, I would certainly agree with Cameron on most comments. However, on the 50p tax rate Cameron is missing a great oppurtunity to attack Brown and Labour - all he has to do is push the idea that the rich will leave Britain, exacerbating the economic crisis, and he then has a reason to repeal it that is palatable to all.
Posted by: Thatcherite88 | April 30, 2009 at 18:11
Man in a shed
"The problem is that Aircraft carriers are becoming increasingly vulnerable. The US Navy has refused to build any more until they can solve the problem of the latest Russian anti-ship missiles ( on sale to all good rogue regimes at the right price )."
Where do you get that from? The US Navy is currently proceeding with the construction of the Gerald Ford class of aircraft carriers. I can find no article saying that it had "refused to build any more," the opinion of military experts is that while those missiles are a threat they are not the superweapons that their makers and America haters make them out to be.
Posted by: The Watcher | April 30, 2009 at 18:24
If only we had more Tory MPs and PPCs with recent military experience who understood the need for an SLBM capability. Some of the arguments here are just bonkers. There is certainly scope for further efficiency savings in the Defence Budget, but canceling the SSBN(R) and CVF projects would be complete stupidity.
Posted by: Andrew Storey | April 30, 2009 at 18:25
A general observation. In any orgnaisation its best to look at the biggest spending depts first as by their nature they are likley to have significant amounts of fat and even "small" savings can work out big as a proportion of the budget. Defence is not a big spender compared to other depts. The place to look is welfare.
Posted by: MG | April 30, 2009 at 19:11
"The Navy's Tomahawk and the RAF's Storm Shadow missiles can be adapted to take a nuclear warhead. They wouldn't have the range of Trident but they would be far more effective to operate and a future Royal Navy carrier strike group with these missiles would be a powerful deterrent force that could operate nearly anyway in the world."
Yes they would be very effective against any country that doesn't operate anti ship missiles and whose major cities are with 1000 miles of a relatively undefended coast.
Watch out neutral Costa Rica!
"So I say yes, cancel Trident, go for cruise missiles and use the savings to ensure that the carriers are built and that they have sufficient escorts and aircraft to make them a credible deterrent force."
Carry nuclear weapons into war zone via a carrier force? If you want the UK expelled from the UN, isolated in the world and possibly forcibly disarmed by international community, then certainly equipping our conventional forces with nuclear weapons would be a great way to go about it.
BTW, the cruise option would be more expensive.
I believe this is the 5th time I have read exactly the same comment by David Lyndsey, he seems to just copy and paste it. But never the less I will fisk him:
"Most European countries do not have nuclear weapons,"
Really? I was under the impression that most countries were part of NATO and therefore under the NATO chain of command. the belgian government may not officially own nuclear weapons, but they still control them. Also they don't need to have them because we do, and we will use them to defend countries like belgium, that is the point of NATO.
"and nor does Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Are these therefore in greater danger?"
they are pacifist countries protected by NATO.
"On the contrary, the London bombings of 7th July 2005 were attacks on a country with nuclear weapons, while the attacks of 11th September 2001 were against the country with by far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world."
Madrid bombings? Jakarta Embassy bombings?
Neither spain nor Australia have nuclear weapons! Doesn't seem to have saved them!
Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 20:34
First the Banks are nationalised and then renewal of the nuclear deterrent is possibly to be scrapped - what part of Labour's 1983 manifesto is going to be implimented next?
The UK needs to be expanding it's defence forces, not running them down further, otherwise this country will just be doing the same thing that most Continental European countries have done. The nuclear detterrent should only be scrapped if some even more efficient and effective weaponry is developed - the best security comes from military strength and trade.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | April 30, 2009 at 20:56
"Yes they would be very effective against any country that doesn't operate anti ship missiles and whose major cities are with 1000 miles of a relatively undefended coast.
Watch out neutral Costa Rica!"
That's why you have a carrier battle group with escorting destroyers and submarines to protect your carrier. You don't send a carrier into action on it's own! People seem to think that the latest hypersonic anti-ship missiles like the Indo-Russian BrahMos are some sort of invincible super weapon which will end American naval supremacy. I'm a regular follower of defence web forums and the answer professional analysts always have to this issue is "If these missiles are so powerful then why aren't the U.S. and other NATO countries developing their own such weapons?" The answer is because an alert naval task force, preferably with organic AEW cover and armed with the latest naval SAM systems such as Standard, Aster and Evolved Sea Sparrow can deal with them.
"Carry nuclear weapons into war zone via a carrier force? If you want the UK expelled from the UN, isolated in the world and possibly forcibly disarmed by international community, then certainly equipping our conventional forces with nuclear weapons would be a great way to go about it."
Why would that happen and who would "forcibly disarm" the UK?? The current international situation probably means that you would not need to deploy nuclear armed cruise missiles on ships and on submarines constantly. What matters is having the capability, the warheads themselves can be kept stored in a bunker and if the international situation turns for the worse then you bolt the warheads on to the missile and deploy them.
Posted by: The Watcher | April 30, 2009 at 23:15
@The Watcher
You have completely failed to understand the point that I am making. You can't hit the countries that you would want to hit.
How would hit Moscow with a cruise missile? You simply couldn't. We need trident because it is effectively indestructable , because the missiles can not effectively be dfended against and because we need a dedicated nuclear force.
Trident is the only thing in our armed forces that the armed forces do not control. The power to control trident lies with the Prime Minister and his alternate decision maker, whoever that is.
I think everybody seems to be missing the fact that both the conservative party and the labour party agree on this. If we are going to have nuclear weapons, they have to be strategic and not tactical, they have to be ICBMs and not cruise missiles, and they have to take the form of a dedicated 2nd strike force.
Cruise missiles do not fulfill this criteria. That is why, outside of conservative home, a cruise system has never even been considered a remote possibility.
If we can't afford trident (13 billion over 10 years out of a budget of 700 billion per year) then we shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Posted by: Thomas | May 01, 2009 at 05:15
Thomas,
You don't understand the point I'm trying to make either! This is not the Cold War, can you foresee circumstances whereby Britain would be in a bilateral nuclear exchange with Russia? Putin may have made Russia's foreign policy more aggressive and assertive, but not even he is advocating a return to the Cold War when you had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads sitting on missiles and planes ready to be used at any time. Remember as well that as member of NATO we have the explicit guarantee that the US would regard a nuclear strike on Britain as if it were a strike on it's own territory. It's pretty clear that in the Cold War, the Soviets took the threat of nuclear destruction from the US far more serious than they took the British and French deterrents (like being stung by a bee compared to a mauling from a grizzly bear). Likewise with China, are there any circumstances where we would need to nuke Beijing or Shanghai?
As I said above, what is more important is that we have the retain the capability to deploy nuclear weapons, how many there are deployed day to day is a matter for assessment on the threat conditions prevailing at the time. Large numbers of British military commanders hate Trident because it is so expensive and it and Polaris before it have distorted the defence budget. If cancelling Trident meant that the Royal Navy could have a 3rd CVF as well as additional Astute Class SSN's and Type 45 destroyers then they would bite your hand off!
Posted by: The Watcher | May 01, 2009 at 07:39
"Remember as well that as member of NATO we have the explicit guarantee that the US would regard a nuclear strike on Britain as if it were a strike on it's own territory."
There is not now, nor has there ever been a guarantee that the US would respond militarily.
Besides, we are an independent counry and we should not live off another nation as a parasite just because we don't want to spend a few pennies.
"As I said above, what is more important is that we have the retain the capability to deploy nuclear weapons, how many there are deployed day to day is a matter for assessment on the threat conditions prevailing at the time."
That makes no sense.
"This is not the Cold War, can you foresee circumstances whereby Britain would be in a bilateral nuclear exchange with Russia?"
Ofcourse it would most likely ve Russia vs NATO. But inorder for nato (in europe) to stand a chance the US would have to deploy many hundreds of warheas here, which they don't because we have trident.
"Putin may have made Russia's foreign policy more aggressive and assertive, but not even he is advocating a return to the Cold War when you had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads sitting on missiles and planes ready to be used at any time."
Russia has by far the largest number of deployable nuclear warhead and most of them are currently in missiles targeted at western europe, particularly britain. Russia is not disarming, yet you seem to think that we should be.
"Likewise with China, are there any circumstances where we would need to nuke Beijing or Shanghai?"
The chinese have hitherto not been regarded as a nation of restraint. The situation in the taiwan strait could degenerate very quickly.
I'm not saying that it will, or that it is even anything less than extremely unlikely, but it is possible and its better to be safe than sorry.
"Large numbers of British military commanders hate Trident because it is so expensive and it and Polaris before it have distorted the defence budget."
They were added on to the defence budget. The MOD has suffered no cuts because of trident.
"If cancelling Trident meant that the Royal Navy could have a 3rd CVF as well as additional Astute Class SSN's and Type 45 destroyers then they would bite your hand off!"
The navy admirals support the replacement of trident, it is only a few army generals, who appear to be under the impression that the money saved would stay inthe defence budget, who oppose our nucler detterent. The RAF hate the system we presently use, and quite openly support a more expensive airborne system.
Besides, you have once again presented a false choice. First of all because scrapping trident would not lead to an increase in our conventional capabilities, as every government since the second world war has said, but even if it did the money could buy almost nothing of use. Yes we could afford another aircraft carrier but we could still not afford the planes to fill them.
Posted by: Thomas | May 01, 2009 at 08:57
"Russia is not disarming, yet you seem to think that we should be."
No I am not! Please read my posts again as it is obvious that you neither have read them properly nor understood them. My position is that we should be considering other forms of nuclear deterrent as opposed to the false choice of "Trident or nothing" that the government is presenting it as.
"There is not now, nor has there ever been a guarantee that the US would respond militarily."
Ever heard of Article 5 of the NATO Charter?
"The chinese have hitherto not been regarded as a nation of restraint. The situation in the taiwan strait could degenerate very quickly.
I'm not saying that it will, or that it is even anything less than extremely unlikely, but it is possible and its better to be safe than sorry. "
Yes it is increasingly unlikely that there will be any way across the Taiwan Strait, but why would Britain be involved? We do not recognise Taiwan as a nation and we have no obligations towards it. The US does under The Taiwan Relations Act and it is more than capable of resisting China.
I could go on but TBH this is only going to go around in circles. So shall we just agree to disagree?
Posted by: The Watcher | May 01, 2009 at 17:33
"My position is that we should be considering other forms of nuclear deterrent as opposed to the false choice of "Trident or nothing" that the government is presenting it as."
A nuclear detterent is composed of strategic nuclear weapons, this is not denied by anybody. Cruise missiles constitute tactical weapons, this is not denied by anybody. Cruise missiles could not hit russia or anywhere of value in china, this is not denied by anybody.
Ergo, it is unanimous that we need a strategic system. As a first strike system is useless we need a second strike system. We therefore have a choice of a continously flying bomber force or continously sailing submarine force. The submarine force is the cheaper option, by about £50,000,000,000 a year, excluding development costs.
We either have to have trident, or an airborne system. Trident is much cheaper and we already have the missiles. It is much cheaper to maintain trident by replacing the outgoing submarines than it is to replace trident with an airborbe strategic system or a new naval or airborne tactical system.
"Ever heard of Article 5 of the NATO Charter?"
I certainly have. Thankyou for supporting my argument that there is no guarantee in NATO that a nation would respond militarily. As you are clearly familiar with article V you will no doubt no be aware that it is quite clear that the treaty does NOT commit NATO to force. It merely commits NATO to react as individual countries to a response, possibly including force, in accordance with individual or collective defence.
"Yes it is increasingly unlikely that there will be any way across the Taiwan Strait, but why would Britain be involved? We do not recognise Taiwan as a nation and we have no obligations towards it. The US does under The Taiwan Relations Act and it is more than capable of resisting China."
America is in NATO isn't it? Article V?
Posted by: Thomas | May 01, 2009 at 18:39
Here's an idea for Trident. Why don't we invite the othe rCommonwealth countries to contribute to it's development and delivery. We could have, say. India contributing 10%, Australia 10%, Canada 10%, some of the smaller countries 2% each etc etc. That would raise the money to pay for the deterrant and the quid pro quo would be that we sign a mutual defense pact and commit to use Trident against any enemies of the Commonwealth.
Good idea??
sajoo
Sightline Payments
Posted by: Account Deleted | February 15, 2011 at 16:17