All at sea!
Trident spells trouble for Blair!
Isn’t it incredible to watch a party famed for it’s pacifists, elected on a programme that included the scrapping of Trident’s replacement, now trying (in vain) to support Tony Blair as he sees (rightly) that Britain should maintain an independent nuclear deterrent. The resignations have already been written, the Chancellor is having to get his hands dirty” whipping” Labour members into line, the revolting ones grow in number.
Without Cameron’s Conservatives Blair would lose the fight, it’s a good job they believe in holding fast to principles. (Some might just see this as a good time to stay out of the Yes lobby and force a humiliating defeat on Blair, this would not be politically, ethically, or morally correct, principles once arrived at are there to defend, and we should not be playing politics with the ultimate defence of the nation.)
Curly's Corner Shop, the blog! 
There is little justification for a replacement UK nuclear deterrent. In the Cold War we had a specific and coherent opponent – the USSR. The USSR was an enemy who could be deterred – the threat of MAD was as scary to them as it was to us. Who are we trying to deter now? In the European theatre (which the UK weapons are deployed as part of NATO strategy) there is no cogent nuclear enemy. It is also self serving weapon – the only thing nukes deter is the use of other nukes.
The Government and Tories want to spend £70bn on a grand statement whilst our troops are dying because they are poorly equipped in wars they shouldn’t be fighting. If the Conservatives really had principles, they would abstain from the Trident vote on the basis that no money should be spent on nukes, at least until our ground forces can fight the wars we are in now, and the ones we are likely to be in the future.
Ask a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan where he wants the military budget spent and he’ll probably pick new boots before new nukes.
No matter how many political principles the Conservatives think they are honouring, how can spending £70bn on a weapon of mass destruction which would be primarily targeted at civilians be classed as ‘morally correct’?
rossinisbird
March 14, 2007 at 11:12 am
“we should not be playing politics with the ultimate defence of the nation”
Ultimate defences are a waste of money if you never use them and if they are unusable.
I would like those who support Trident be specific as to whom and under what circumstances would we kill with it..
And would the US let us use it?
(Remembering the fuss over the source code for the Joint Strike Fighter does anyone seriously think the US will let the UK use Trident on its own?)
Madasafish
March 14, 2007 at 11:31 am
Conditions and times have changed, and with these changes come new threats. Threats from those in the Middle East and the Far East making a headlong rush towards nuclear dependency create a situation where we need to be independently defended, as the risks of tagging along on the coat-tails of the U.S. become increasingly dangerous.
If it weren’t for the simpering over Uncle Sam attitudes, our boys would not be fighting campaigns against Islamic militants at home and abroad (without the most basic of equipment.) In terms of our GDP, Defence spending has shrunk overall despite Chancellor Brown’s small year on year increases, and a boost is without doubt needed. Only God would be able to help us if certain rogue states acquired the technologies to deliver their fledgling nuclear warheads at targets further away than Israel, if we had no deterrent of our own!
curly15
March 14, 2007 at 11:34 am
When have we been threatened by Middle East and Far East states? Are we likely to be? What are the likely circumstances where a nuclear state would threaten us?
In terms of the Middle East, hanging on US coat tails increases the risk of confrontation – the answer to your dilemma is to stop supporting the US in it’s morally questionable escapades. In the Far East, the UK has no interests there to defend from nuclear attack.
The only likely circumstances where we would be threatened by foreign states nukes is if they were given reason to. If it’s some kind of insane ‘mad mullah’ regime that Bush likes to refer to, then it’s unlikely that MAD would be a deterrent anyway. However, these states aren’t as crazy as we like to make them.
Britain’s nukes are deployed as part of a NATO solution to a problem which no longer exists. To threaten to now deploy them against what we consider to be ‘rogue states’ would only serve to further proliferation as these states would reasonably seek to defend themselves against us with their own deterrent.
The world is already seeing accelerating proliferation. By going for a Trident replacement we are only justifying other states’ desire for their own weapons.
rossinisbird
March 14, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Our independent nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy, and it would be short sighted and foolhardy to give it up at a time when other less stable regimes are acquiring their first tastes of this terrible technology. As the world takes on new shapes and forms in the balance of power and the distribution of wealth we should be wary of rushing to judgement about the intents (peaceful or otherwise) of all states that hold an interest in the nuclear age, there is absolutely no guarantee that former foes (or indeed friends) will maintain their current positions. Who knows what will happen in Russia, for instance, after Putin’s murderous time has past?
I would sleep safer in my afterlife knowing that Trident might provide future generations of Britons with the relative peace and freedom from a nuclear war that we enjoyed.
Now in most cases I might have suggested that a “comment” as long as your’s Rossi was more of a dialogue and far too long! I might have suggested, in someone else’s case, that they go get a blog of their own, but of course you already have! I thought this subject might have been right up your street and that you might ‘have a go’ at it yourself.
curly15
March 14, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Curly,
The only time Britain has had an ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent was in the days when the Royal Air Force carried free fall nuclear bombs on the V-force bombers half a century ago. Both of our Submarine based systems have required permission from the US prior to launching.
I also notice you have taken the usual stance of cowardly politicians by refusing to state which civilians you’d be willing to commit mass murder against with these WMD’s?
comingup4air
March 14, 2007 at 11:12 pm
I do not profess to be a cowardly politician these days (have not been a member of a political organisation for at least twenty years) so I will have to remain a cowardly citizen blogger.
So, therefore, with the consent of the U.S.A. (if it’s still there) I’d nuke whoever attempted to nuke me! Attempted being operative word in the hope that “Son of Star Wars is up and running! One must remember that the principles of MAD ought to apply, therefore if Bungacashland has a nuclear weapon I would be wary of launching one at them, and vice versa, isn’t that the reason why there has never been a nuclear conflict? There is also a playground principle that applies, if the schoolyard bully carries a baseball bat behind his back, you can bet I’ll have a bigger one behind mine!
The biggest drawback, of course, in these international arrangements is that we cannot for the foreseeable future formulate a genuine independent foreign policy. Why can’t we be like the French? Perhaps that would put us in the invidious position of reneging on age old treaties.
curly15
March 15, 2007 at 1:03 am