Europe

Home page

Europe

Generals add their fire to Cleggâ€™s attack on Trident

22 April 2010 03:13 (UTC +04:00)

Baku â€“ APA. Britain should be prepared to scrap its nuclear deterrent, a group of generals write in The Times today, pushing the future of Trident to the forefront of the election, APA reports quoting â€œTimes Onlineâ€.
The generals say that the next government would threaten both frontline Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the Â£80 billion required to replace the fleet of submarines.
Their intervention, although nonpolitical, offers timely support for Nick Clegg, who goes into tomorrow nightâ€™s foreign affairs debate with Gordon Brown and David Cameron as the only party leader arguing against a like-for-like replacement.
Writing in The Times, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach and Major-General Patrick Cordingley express â€œdeep concernâ€ that the future of Trident has been excluded from the Strategic Defence Review that will follow the election. They caution that suppressing discussion of the issue or dismissing alternatives would be â€œa major strategic blunderâ€.
Since 2007, when the Government decided to replace Trident, the debate has shifted significantly, they write, and there is now a â€œgrowing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces ... is the way to achieve international securityâ€. Pressing ahead regardless with a costly replacement could upset President Obamaâ€™s international disarmanent drive, they say. And money spent on nuclear weapons would be unavailable for frontline troops, counter-terrorism work, helicopters, armoured vehicles, frigates or manpower.
They argue that any genuinely comprehensive review needs to answer the question: â€œIs the UKâ€™s security best served by going ahead with business as usual, reducing our nuclear arsenal, adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?â€
With Labour and the Conservatives adopting a similar stance â€” that Britainâ€™s defence capabilities, along with its standing in the world, requires a direct replacement â€” the future of Trident has hardly featured in the election campaign so far. However, the Liberal Democratsâ€™ surge. coupled with the generalsâ€™ intervention. will push it up the agenda, giving Mr Clegg another dividing line between himself and the two more established parties.
The Liberal Democrats are in favour of increasing the lifespan of the four Trident ballistic missile submarines while exploring alternatives, such as medium-range nuclear missiles launched from a tactical submarine.
Such a policy, if followed, would threaten a serious rift with the defence establishment in the United States, as Britainâ€™s nuclear deterrent is a pillar of the â€œspecial relationshipâ€.
Paul Beaver, a defence analyst, said: â€œThis is not a military programme. This is a national programme. It is about Britainâ€™s place in the world. It is about our relationship with the United States most of all.â€
However, General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank added his weight to the debate last night, saying that a cheaper option to Trident should be considered, particularly as Britain strives for a world without nuclear bombs.
â€œDo we really need the kind of effective weapon we had in the Cold War? There is quite an argument to say we do not,â€ he told The Times. He suggested that nuclear-tipped missiles launched from the land or by air were possible alternatives.