Brown in favour of updating Trident!!!

#1
Finally he's managed to find his nuts and actually make an adult decision, instead of pandering to the quasi-commies in his midst.


Gordon Brown promised last night to approve the updating of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent in an attempt to show that a Labour government led by him would not swing back to the Left or be "soft" on defence.

In a move that will anger Left-wing MPs, the Chancellor told business leaders and financiers that as Prime Minister he would be "strong" in fighting terrorism, supporting the Armed Forces and "retaining our independent nuclear deterrent".


Treasury sources said Mr Brown, who in the past has been criticised for squeezing the defence budget, would assure military chiefs that as Chancellor or Prime Minister he would find the necessary resources to ensure the long term future of Britain's nuclear deterrent.

The cost of replacing the Trident fleet of nuclearpowered submarines together with a new missile system is put at between £10 billion and £25 billion, though the cost could be lower if the missiles alone were updated.

Mr Brown used his annual Mansion House speech to the City of London to signal publicly for the first time that he supported updating the nuclear deterrent. It was a clear message to Left-wing MPs, who have been calling for a "radical renewal" - political code for the abandonment of Tony Blair's reform programme - that he would not be a "soft touch" on issues such as defence.

It was also aimed at supporters of Mr Blair who have argued that the Prime Minister should stay on because Mr Brown was reluctant to take tough decisions that could hamper his bid to become the next Labour leader.
Note the last paragraph! Could this be a politically driven statement rather than a well thought out strategic decision?? :wink:
telegraph
 
#2
Smithy wrote:

Note the last paragraph! Could this be a politically driven statement rather than a well thought out strategic decision??

The most blatant bit of electioneering I've seen in a long time. Mind you, anything that p*sses of Bruce Kent gets my support!!
 
#3
You don't think that £25 billion (and does anyone want to put money on the project coming in at or below that price?) might be better spent elsewhere in HM Forces?

It's a multi-billion pound vanity project.
 
#4
No doubt we'll see another of those strategic reviews regarding the basing/refitting/assembly of the new system.

Back in the 60s Polaris was going to be based in either Falmouth (ideal, close to the continental shelf in the western approaches) or Faslane (not ideal, accessed by a narrow and shallow channel that the Soviets could easily block).

For political reasons the boats went to Faslane (Labour constituency y'see).

So, will Boredom Brown try to relocate the new boats' base or maintenance to Rosyth, to make ammends for the Tory government moving the refitting complex from Rosyth to Plymouth?

And who might the MP for Rosyth be? Step forward Gordon Brown!

The new carriers, by the way, will be built in sections in shipyards across the UK and assembled in, you guessed it, Rosyth. If Rover had decided to make bits of its cars around the UK and then transport those bits for assembly in the middle of nowhere they'd go out of business because of the costs. Oh, er, hang on.......
 
#5
Should spend the money on updating/replacing the TRISTARS!
 
#6
And you don't think that once in power this idea will be dropped in oh, I don't know, 15 ns?

Or maybe he's actually learnt from Michael Foot's 1983 "we want to surrender to our friends the Soviets" fiasco?
 
#7
If you assume that we're not going to entirely give up nuclear capability.
And I'd say that that is a very safe assumption.

The safest and most effective system from the deterrance point of view is an SLBM system. No other available system offers the virtual absoulute assurance of an unacceptable level of retaliatory capability against any enemy.

Does such an enemy exist today?
No.

But the development and lead-in time of such a complex system is measured in decades. And you cannot state that in 15/20 years from now we will not be faced with an unfriendly nation or power bloc with considerable capability for power projection.
 
#8
crabtastic said:
You don't think that £25 billion (and does anyone want to put money on the project coming in at or below that price?) might be better spent elsewhere in HM Forces?

It's a multi-billion pound vanity project.
Rubbish Crabster. Ultimately as a small nation of 60 million souls, nukes are the 'Force Multiplier' that guarantee our independence. Also without them we'd be out of the UNSC without touching the ground..and the French would still have them!

So unless you have a crystal ball we need a nuclear deterrent and those carriers, we'll find the money.
 
#9
They are definately needed. Who knows what may happen in the future? God forbid that one day we would have to rely on the USA because we didn't invest in our own nuclear deterent capability.
 
#10
crabtastic said:
You don't think that £25 billion (and does anyone want to put money on the project coming in at or below that price?) might be better spent elsewhere in HM Forces?

It's a multi-billion pound vanity project.
Whilst i do advocate more money on defence, what good are soldiers and tanks against a nuclear exchange?

We need a 'detterent', and at the moment, the only one of sufficient magnitude happens to be a dose of instant sunshine. Yes it may be vanity (as in, "I'm in the 10 inch willy club'), but is it a price we can afford not to pay?
 
#11
Could I refer everyone to the 'Yes Prime Minister' episode where Jim Hacker, as the new PM, goes over to the MoD to have a look at the 'button'.

Timeless observations about the need for conventional forces, but also that they need to be backed up by a big stick. Oh, and you'd better hope the PM doesn't get drunk and use the red phone as a joke.....

Although, they only got through to the Kremlin once on the hotline, and the operator at the other end didn't seem to speak much english. :D
 
#12
When the likes of Iran, N Korea etc are developing Nukes, it would be an act of gross folly not to have the capability to deter. As for the location of the bases, I refer you all to the many posts on the break up of the UK. They will be built and based in England for we will be independent by then.
 
#13
Gents please tell me just WHO Britian is going to nuc.
The politicians retain the nuc for the Seat on the UN Security Council, to THEM a Seat on the top table.
john
 
#14
jonwilly said:
Gents please tell me just WHO Britian is going to nuc.
The politicians retain the nuc for the Seat on the UN Security Council, to THEM a Seat on the top table.
john
Who knows what will happen in the future?
 
#15
jonwilly said:
Gents please tell me just WHO Britian is going to nuc.
The politicians retain the nuc for the Seat on the UN Security Council, to THEM a Seat on the top table.
john
Anyone who in the near to middle distance poses a substantial threat to the national security (in the form of 'the bomb')

It's very short sighted to claim that because we have no enemies now, we have no need for such a weapon...
 
#16
jonwilly wrote:

Gents please tell me just WHO Britian is going to nuc.

Potentially? Iran, N Korea, Pakistan (If the fundamentalists ever took charge) Syria and lets not forget France.....

We would Nuke anyone who tried to nuke us Jon, or if a terrorist group ever attacked us with a nuke, Mecca would make an excellent retaliatory target!
 
#17
Funny as it is, that episode makes a very good point.

The power of an SLBM system is such that it makes it very nearly unthinkable for any sane person to contemplate using it.

Equally, any sane person on "the other side" needs to consider their actions based upon he potential for what would be, for many (most) nations on Earth a death blow. I don't think any nation, regardless of size or population could economically weather the brunt of an attack from even a single Trident boat.

Tactical systems are much more dangerous, they're both more usable from the owners point of view and their damage potential, while drastic, may be considered to be bearable, particularly for any nation with an advanced air defence system.
 
#18
Asking "who would we nuc?" kind of misses the point of deterrent systems.

However who do we want to be made aware of our potential to nuc them?

Resurgent Russia?
China?
Resurgent russia allied with China?
Confederation of Middle Asian States?
Confederation of Far Asian States?
An extreme right-wing dictatorship in what used to be the USA?
Any combination of the above?

I don't know, nor does anyone else.
What will the next two decades bring..... Who can tell?

There is a difference between an unwillingness to fund or procure defence system/project and an inability to procure same.
 
#19
When we do update, I don't suppose theres any chance of a "Bosnian unload" of the old boats in the direction of France is there?
 
#20
20 years ago, nobody could foresee the breakup of the soviet union. Whatever happens 20 years from now, it's fairly likely that no one will have foreseen it at this point, or their suggestion will have been written off as ridiculous and unthinkable.

For this very reason we need to be able to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top