7 Comments

• Herbert Brown 17th Jul '09 - 7:31pm

  “… a like-for-like Trident replacement is unnecessary and unjustifiable when our troops in Afghanistan are still short of kit.”

  Much as I agree with the new policy of not replacing Trident, I really don’t think statements like that are going to convince anyone that the policy is based on a serious assessment of the long-term strategic situation!

• Andy Hinton 17th Jul '09 - 8:53pm

  Herbert: Surely that is exactly the right sort of frame to suggest a strategic consideration rather than simply a financial one or an absolutely anti-nuclear or pacifist one. It is precisely because Britain’s strategic interests for the future look to be better served by improving our ability to engage in the kind of combat now going on in Afghanistan that a Trident replacement is such a white elephant.

• Somewhere in Between 17th Jul '09 - 9:03pm

  Andy/Herbert:

  It is only justifyable to use that comparison if you then go on to say, all the money that is budgeted to be spent on Trident should be spent on urgent operational requirements for Afghanistan.

  Unfortuately, Nick Clegg hasn’t ruled out nuclear weapons – only Trident.

  He has not made any attempt to say how much another system would cost and therefore how much he could save.

  Nor has ne made a committment to save any saved money on defence.

  So ultimately – I agree with Herbert.

  Nick’s statement, while politically attractive in the current climate – is basically just base politiking.

• Somewhere in Between 17th Jul '09 - 9:05pm

  spend – not save – sorry

• Alex 17th Jul '09 - 9:58pm

  Andy,

  We have no idea what our strategic interests in the future will be. There are plenty of respected analysts right across the spectrum who think the nineties and noughties obsession with Islamism and associated expeditionary warfare will, in the future, be seen as the ‘red herring’ of foreign policy in an era of climate change and declining energy security.

  In that sort of world of uncertainty it might be wise to retain nuclear weapons. And on the political level, it just looks like crass populism; more gear for the guys at the cost of the deterrent. The truth is far more complex (as ever), to do with MoD equipment failures in procurement and the general strategy in Afghanistan (which Nick himself has rightly critiqued).

  In short it looks like a political cheap shot.

  The Trident non-policy is one of the worst things Nick has done since he became leader. Purely aside from its status as a u-turn (not necessarily a bad thing), it’s based on the idea that we retain a deterrent but one which is more cost-effective. So one week he’s slamming Trident for being too costly in a recession, the next week he’s slamming it because it’s supposedly diverting resources from the front line. Trident’s turning into Nick’s equivalent of ‘government waste’ or ‘overseas aid’, a useful target for all seasons.

  And in all that he’s stated he wants to retain a deterrent but apart from vague comments about nuclear tipped cruise missiles, we have no idea what he actually means.

• Herbert Brown 17th Jul '09 - 10:48pm

  My point is that whether we need a strategic nuclear deterrent is an important question which needs to be thought out properly and argued on its own merits.

  This kind of nonsensical soundbite is no substitute for that process. And of course if Clegg is going to accuse others of “chaos and confusion” he would be wise to work out exactly what he proposes to replace Trident with.

• Geoffrey Payne 19th Jul '09 - 12:55pm

  We cannot afford to replace Trident, and we do not need to because nuclear deterrent is not needed and is unlikely to ever be needed.
  We should also pull out of Afghanistan as there war there is unwinnable.
  We can certainly save a lot of money if we did not have such an inflated view of our position in the world.