Comments on: Chris Huhne writes: No to Trident http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:46:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Darren Reynolds http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-34583 Darren Reynolds Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:44:09 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-34583 Both candidates’ Trident policies fall down on rational analysis. If the threat is from rogue states and terrorists, nuclear weapons are useless against either. Both men support replacing Trident which is illegal under the NNPT and will only foster proliferation. More of us will die in agony from cancer than will be taken out by terrorists anyway. There are better priorities for the money. Both candidates’ Trident policies fall down on rational analysis. If the threat is from rogue states and terrorists, nuclear weapons are useless against either. Both men support replacing Trident which is illegal under the NNPT and will only foster proliferation. More of us will die in agony from cancer than will be taken out by terrorists anyway. There are better priorities for the money.

]]> By: Matthew Harris http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-34554 Matthew Harris Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:57:21 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-34554 I just think that the Alliance's experience in the 1980s suggests that clarity is needed in this policy area. Clegg says "retain a scaled-down Trident, with the necessary updates, and enter it into multilateral disarmament talks in 2010". That is a clear policy. Huhne says "Don't update Trident, and let's decide in 2010 whether or not to replace it with another system". That is not a clear policy. Between now and 2010, what would one say on the doorstep if asked whether Huhne, as Leader, wants to keep nuclear weapons? One can hardly say: "I don't know" or "He is still deciding whether a new system is going to prove necessary." I just think that the Alliance’s experience in the 1980s suggests that clarity is needed in this policy area. Clegg says “retain a scaled-down Trident, with the necessary updates, and enter it into multilateral disarmament talks in 2010″. That is a clear policy. Huhne says “Don’t update Trident, and let’s decide in 2010 whether or not to replace it with another system”. That is not a clear policy. Between now and 2010, what would one say on the doorstep if asked whether Huhne, as Leader, wants to keep nuclear weapons? One can hardly say: “I don’t know” or “He is still deciding whether a new system is going to prove necessary.”

]]> By: bill haymes http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32806 bill haymes Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:43:52 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32806 Though this clearly needs more reflection as im sure he would admit and i would prefer the Clegg option of bargaining away Trident as per the Pugwash Report this is a courageous position and the sniggering is just childish Though this clearly needs more reflection as im sure he would admit and i would prefer the Clegg option of bargaining away Trident as per the Pugwash Report this is a courageous position and the sniggering is just childish

]]> By: Denis Loretto http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32797 Denis Loretto Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:49:41 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32797 Bearing in mind the long timescale and the forthcoming 2010 negotiations Chris is sensibly not yet committing himself as to what should replace Trident. His preferred option if feasible is not replacing it with another so-called independent nuclear deterrent at all. He is ruling out here and now a Trident-type deterrent. Could I hear please from any Lib Dem member the case for renewing a fleet of appallingly expensive submarines permanently prowling the world's oceans and with multi missiles targeted on ..........? Bearing in mind the long timescale and the forthcoming 2010 negotiations Chris is sensibly not yet committing himself as to what should replace Trident. His preferred option if feasible is not replacing it with another so-called independent nuclear deterrent at all. He is ruling out here and now a Trident-type deterrent. Could I hear please from any Lib Dem member the case for renewing a fleet of appallingly expensive submarines permanently prowling the world’s oceans and with multi missiles targeted on ……….?

]]> By: Richard http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32793 Richard Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:16:24 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32793 16 - Where has Chris Huhne ever said he is a unilateralist? He always said he was not a unilateralist but couldn't see the point of Trident. 16 – Where has Chris Huhne ever said he is a unilateralist? He always said he was not a unilateralist but couldn’t see the point of Trident.

]]> By: Hywel Morgan http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32774 Hywel Morgan Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:26:58 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32774 Lynne - I voted for him last time. Current party policy has everything to do with a media friendly soundbite (nowhere have I seen any explanation about why 100 missiles is militarily the right level). In abscence of any detail Chris is indulging in a similar approach to and is trying to portray himself as unilateralist when he isn't. Lynne – I voted for him last time.

Current party policy has everything to do with a media friendly soundbite (nowhere have I seen any explanation about why 100 missiles is militarily the right level).

In abscence of any detail Chris is indulging in a similar approach to and is trying to portray himself as unilateralist when he isn’t.

]]> By: lynne featherstone http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32747 lynne featherstone Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:12:17 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32747 Well - Chris has clearly got all you Cleggites rattled! I always knew I was getting somewhere in Hornsey & Wood Green when the attack levels from Labour rained in on me! But in this contest - didn't expect it from the same side! Well – Chris has clearly got all you Cleggites rattled! I always knew I was getting somewhere in Hornsey & Wood Green when the attack levels from Labour rained in on me! But in this contest – didn’t expect it from the same side!

]]> By: adrian http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32754 adrian Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:07:39 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32754 Lynne - the same could be said of the unusual sight of one of the candidates' campaign managers finding the time to comment on this site! It isn't the Cleggies who should be rattled today! Lynne – the same could be said of the unusual sight of one of the candidates’ campaign managers finding the time to comment on this site! It isn’t the Cleggies who should be rattled today!

]]> By: Laurence Boyce http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32750 Laurence Boyce Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:35:48 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32750 So Lynne, where was the "anti-establishment edge" to Chris's manifesto? I read it through in eager anticipation, but it never came. So Lynne, where was the “anti-establishment edge” to Chris’s manifesto? I read it through in eager anticipation, but it never came.

]]> By: Bonkalot Jones http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32745 Bonkalot Jones Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:30:20 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32745 Let us buy Chris Huhne a donkey jacket now, as he is soon going to be heading back to political oblivion... Let us buy Chris Huhne a donkey jacket now, as he is soon going to be heading back to political oblivion…

]]> By: Ian Turgoose http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32736 Ian Turgoose Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:43:38 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32736 Dosent make sense. To me Huhne's position seems to be motivated by getting a 'Scrap Trident' headline rather than common sense. We should leave this type of spin to the other parties. Dosent make sense. To me Huhne’s position seems to be motivated by getting a ‘Scrap Trident’ headline rather than common sense. We should leave this type of spin to the other parties.

]]> By: pedant http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32730 pedant Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:49:02 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32730 GarethEpps @ 8 say "£76 billion commitment to Son of Trident" Chris says £20bn, not £76bn - where does this 'non-partisan' figure come from. GarethEpps @ 8 say “£76 billion commitment to Son of Trident”

Chris says £20bn, not £76bn – where does this ‘non-partisan’ figure come from.

]]> By: Peter Bancroft http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32727 Peter Bancroft Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:29:24 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32727 Our current policy on "Son of Trident" is: "A presumption in favour of the most cost effective replacement for the current Trident system being a submarine system based on the Trident missile of 3 boats carrying no more than 24 warheads each." Source: http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/story.html?id=11446&navPage=news.html So Chris is just saying that he thinks that other options are more cost effective? Our current policy on “Son of Trident” is:
“A presumption in favour of the most cost effective replacement for the current Trident system being a submarine system based on the Trident missile of 3 boats carrying no more than 24 warheads each.”
Source: http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/story.html?id=11446&navPage=news.html

So Chris is just saying that he thinks that other options are more cost effective?

]]> By: Gareth Epps http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32726 Gareth Epps Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:25:55 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32726 It's pretty obvious to all bar the partisan (Jeremy...) - the intention to replace Trident would be the bargaining tool to go into the 2010 negotiations, but the £76 billion commitment to Son of Trident would be rejected as an approach, seemingly. Son of Trident would not be built by 2010, neither would this, so what it is, is immaterial. It’s pretty obvious to all bar the partisan (Jeremy…) – the intention to replace Trident would be the bargaining tool to go into the 2010 negotiations, but the £76 billion commitment to Son of Trident would be rejected as an approach, seemingly. Son of Trident would not be built by 2010, neither would this, so what it is, is immaterial.

]]> By: adrian http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32724 adrian Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:47:58 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32724 Jeremy Hargreaves has put this quite well: http://www.jeremyhargreaves.org/blog/2007/huhnes-trident-policy-collapses/ Jeremy Hargreaves has put this quite well:

http://www.jeremyhargreaves.org/blog/2007/huhnes-trident-policy-collapses/

]]> By: Joe Otten http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32705 Joe Otten Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:04:50 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32705 So Chris's policy is to develop a new nuclear weapons system. OKaaaaay. So Chris’s policy is to develop a new nuclear weapons system. OKaaaaay.

]]> By: I don't get it http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32704 I don't get it Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:57:29 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32704 Correct me if I’m wrong: 1. Huhne says replace Trident with a smaller and cheaper nuclear system although doesn’t say how/what/when/where. 2. Clegg says cut Trident in half and negotaite away the rest if possible, replacing Trident if appears necessary after negotiation. I’d say Clegg has most radical disarming position. Having said that no-one here to vote for if you want to ‘ban the bomb’ although Clegg comes nearest as Huhne is pledged to replace while Clegg isn’t Correct me if I’m wrong:

1. Huhne says replace Trident with a smaller and cheaper nuclear system although doesn’t say how/what/when/where.

2. Clegg says cut Trident in half and negotaite away the rest if possible, replacing Trident if appears necessary after negotiation.

I’d say Clegg has most radical disarming position.

Having said that no-one here to vote for if you want to ‘ban the bomb’ although Clegg comes nearest as Huhne is pledged to replace while Clegg isn’t

]]> By: cynic http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32701 cynic Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:29:30 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32701 No to Trident, Yes to what? This is more fudgy than the official position. No to Trident, Yes to what?

This is more fudgy than the official position.

]]> By: Hywel Morgan http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32700 Hywel Morgan Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:27:50 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32700 "If your policy is just replace Trident with something else less expensive name it man!" To got Toby in the West Wing, "his point is not wholly without merit" For this policy to have any substance, in my view Chris needs to set out: 1) What sort of system 2) How many missiles and warheads will it need 3) What are the military objectives of the system - ie if deployed we are looking to level X cities of the enemy, approx XX% of missiles will be intercepted therefore we need to have at least. 4) If landbased can it be guaranteed to have the range to reach any target (eg a Trident sub operating in the North Atlantic could be out of range of North Korea As a reluctant supporter of the nuclear deterrent my fundamental concern is that the damn thing would actually do the job if we need it. Otherwise it really is a waste of money! At the moment this is just "think of a number and halve it" policy making and makes him look opportunist. “If your policy is just replace Trident with something else less expensive name it man!”

To got Toby in the West Wing, “his point is not wholly without merit”

For this policy to have any substance, in my view Chris needs to set out:
1) What sort of system
2) How many missiles and warheads will it need
3) What are the military objectives of the system – ie if deployed we are looking to level X cities of the enemy, approx XX% of missiles will be intercepted therefore we need to have at least.
4) If landbased can it be guaranteed to have the range to reach any target (eg a Trident sub operating in the North Atlantic could be out of range of North Korea

As a reluctant supporter of the nuclear deterrent my fundamental concern is that the damn thing would actually do the job if we need it. Otherwise it really is a waste of money!

At the moment this is just “think of a number and halve it” policy making and makes him look opportunist.

]]> By: Peter Bancroft http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32699 Peter Bancroft Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:03:05 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-writes-no-to-trident-1567.html#comment-32699 Having heard the debate yesterday and read this, I'm still confused. Chris definitely feels that Nick's attacks aren't valid on his own policy, but it's unclear to me as to what it is. It almost seems that Huhne is the more pro-nuclear weapon option in explicitly talking about post-Trident weapons systems, but I'm not sure that's right either. Having heard the debate yesterday and read this, I’m still confused.

Chris definitely feels that Nick’s attacks aren’t valid on his own policy, but it’s unclear to me as to what it is.

It almost seems that Huhne is the more pro-nuclear weapon option in explicitly talking about post-Trident weapons systems, but I’m not sure that’s right either.

]]>