I was really pleased to hear Nick Clegg raise the issue of Trident and the treatment of our troops during the first TV debate. For too long, the defence debate has been dominated by the Tories, claiming to be the only party who understands defence, and Labour who are happy to use troops but aren’t interested in where they live, how much they’re paid or what happens to them when they get home.
Successive defence reviews in the 1990s tore the heart out of the military without really addressing the key issue of what armed forces are used for in the modern age. This has continued with the slavish dedication of Labour and the Tories to a full, like for like replacement of Trident. I am not 100% sold on the idea of abandoning all forms of nuclear deterrent – there are too many unanswered questions around future threats, particularly in parts of Asia. However, Trident is born of the idea that it is acceptable to completely wipe out an enemy’s population centre, killing millions of people – itself born out of the aerial bombing strategies of the Second World War. There are now other options.
Nuclear weapons are unusable against the non-state actors which are the current main threat to our security – their use would be ethically unacceptable and ineffective. Against state actors, are we really saying that destroying cities is preferable to other more surgical action by special forces, precision weapons or other asymmetric means? Even as a fail-safe in final defence of the homeland, nuclear weapons cannot be deemed a reasonable option – irradiating our own or surrounding countries can hardly be deemed ‘self-preservation’.
So what about the argument that we need to retain a seat at the ‘top table’. Britain is not a world power any more. Our ability to project military force half a world away is now quite evidently a thing of the past – we are reliant on the US and NATO allies. Moves towards a new Entente Coridale with France have to be welcomed. Economic, as well as or if not more than military power, is now the defining factor in the world order. Our interests coincide with the rest of Western Europe in that regard, as well as America, and as a bloc working together, we can protect our interests adequately enough without the need of a bully-boy tactics and gunship diplomacy, or the threat of nuclear weapons.
Conservative politics has refused to accept his reality since the 1960s – it is in their nature to attempt to conserve the ideals and practices of a world that has long-since departed. Labour have accepted this reality, but are now so wedded to the idea of walking tall on the world stage that they have no choice but to refuse to hand back one of the chips. The Liberal Democrat line needs to develop, but it is the one party that is daring to ask the right questions and put forward original proposals. £100bn is a huge sum which could be saved and put to better use – either in other public services, or in providing better pay conditions and equipment for the men and women of our armed forces who honour us with their service.
Dom Newton is a student of international relations and child of two generations of RAF
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tracing the route of Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Number 12: The Innocence Mission - Black Sheep Wall
Lib Dems see off Reform in Barnsley with double their vote
Cleanliness at Harris Academy swimming pool #dundeewestend
Welsh councils still facing financical difficulties
Joe Bourke
Mohammed Amin
Jonathan Brown
theakes
2 Comments
I’m a floating voter whose main quibble with the Libdems is their woolly position on defence (infact I think this is your big downfall). Let’s get things straight first – the nuclear deterrent is a second strike UK political weapon. Can we rule out this silly notion that we have to ask ourselves the question ‘is it acceptable to wipe out a countries population centre’ because since we will only use our weapons as a retaliation to a nuclear strike on this country. We will never use Nukes for first strike, we no longer have tactical nukes – our weapons are all or nothing (as a deterrent should be).
Secondly,someone from your party needs to explain to voters such as myself what these mysterious alternatives are that are cheaper? Numerous studies have already been undertaken that suggest sub based missiles are the most cost effective. Thirdly, not even CND uses £100billion as a figure for Trident. Can you stop this deliberate falsehood to score political points please, its likely to cost £15-20bn. We know a car doesn’t just cost its owner its purchase price.
What really bothers me is this statement – ‘So what about the argument that we need to retain a seat at the ‘top table’. Britain is not a world power any more.’
It’s a deliberate playing down of British power and I won’t vote for anyone who talks this country down. Which other country is a permanent member of the UNSC, G8,G20, Nuclear club? How many other countries have the ability to project power (yes we can, few other countries have our ability in this area) and have a blue water navy ? There are very few world powers by your definition. Infact there is just one – the US. The UK has advantages that a lot of other countries are envious of, stop putting ourselves down – we all know we no longer have an empire. You sound like an apologist.
Personally I’m anti-war but pro British military strength. I want our forces only to act in our interests in future and not others. I’m in favour of a smaller expeditionary army and a bigger carrier based navy meaning we’re less likely to get dragged into endless land wars but can still protect our interests if they’re threatened.
What is the LibDems position on the carriers by the way, I think Willie Rennie stated in parliament you’re all for them but your actual defence policy is so bare its difficult to tell.
I wish you well because your other policies blow the other parties out of the water, I just find the LibDem commitment to ‘defence of the realm’ very wishy-washy.
Hi Andy
thanks for your response to my post – you raise a number of issue that merit further discussion.
Firstly, i would argue that there are profound ethical considerations in a tit-for-tat nuclear exchange which is the basis of deterrence – cold war deterrence at that. In a large-scale nuclear exchange, allies would inevitably be drawn in in any case, so any response from the UK would be small beer in comparison to the greater catastrophe. In the event of a one-off attack (for example a small scale strike or terrorist attack), a response from the UK would be likely to draw in other players, and in any case there remains the moral question as to whether it would be right to respond in this way or using conventional directed means.
I agree with the point you make about cars not costing their purchase price is correct – there’s servicing, fuel and of course driving lessons and potentially scrappage. The same applies to trident – the costs of the missile and simply purchasing the delivery platform doesn’t include the training, ongoing support and running costs and eventual disposal of the system. In honesty i don’t know what the numbers are – no-one does. £100bn is probably excessive, but the £25bn proposed by Gordon Brown is also a huge underestimate.
Finally, there is no attempt to talk this country down or apologise for past mis-demeanours – we weren’t there, didn’t make the decisions, so how can we meaningfully apologise? I also strongly supported Cook’s ‘ethical dimension’ in 1997 (even if it was never satisfactorily weighted) and Paddy Ashdown’s views on the former yugoslavia – i’m not saying power shouldn’t be used, but just that we need to have realistic views of our own abilities.
G8 and G20 are primarily economic fora, so this bears out my suggestion that economic power is more important. the UNSC is an important forum too, but realistically we are not the US, China or Russia – would we realistically endanger the Atlantic Alliance by vetoing the US in this forum? I would doubt it.
We do still have blue water navy and this can be a tool for power projection. However, the numbers of ships on order has been successively hacked away by tory and labour governments, despite commitments in the 1998 SDR. The air force too has been subject to massive reductions since the 1980, partially in response to the end of the cold war, but also despite it’s use in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq (several times) and Afghanistan.
Every conflict the UK has taken part in in the last 30 years with the exception of the Falklands and Sierra Leone have been as part of multilateral efforts with the UK as an important but junior partner to the US. This is not to say that we should retain effective and independent armed forces.
But this is not supported by a like-for-like replacement of trident, which diverts resources away from conventional forces. I don’t know what the position is on the carriers – it’s not mentioned in the manifesto. However there is a commitment to an SDR, which if it includes the commitment to reduce or remove Trident will hopefully redirect some of these resources to conventional forces.
I look forward to continuing the discussion! Meanwhile, don’t let me put you off, i’m only a member!