Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrats leader
Posted on 04/20/2010 8:31:46 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
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.
The generals say that the next government would threaten both frontline Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the £80 billion required to replace the fleet of submarines.
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrats leader
Their intervention, although nonpolitical, offers timely support for Nick Clegg, who goes into tomorrow night’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 “deep concern” 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 “a major strategic blunder”.
Since 2007, when the Government decided to replace Trident, the debate has shifted significantly, they write, and there is now a “growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces ... is the way to achieve international security”. Pressing ahead regardless with a costly replacement could upset President Obama’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: “Is the UK’s security best served by going ahead with business as usual, reducing our nuclear arsenal, adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?”
With Labour and the Conservatives adopting a similar stance — that Britain’s defence capabilities, along with its standing in the world, requires direct replacement — the future
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Might as well disarm.
Brit replies say, "We should follow Obamas lead."
yitbos
No doubt descended from the General Staff who supported Chamberlain’s “peace in our time”.
Ungland...
Call me old fashioned with how I like to deal with terrorists, but his working for for GJW, who were lobbying for the Libyan mad dog and to protect Megrahi and Fhimah from prosecution was enough for me...
Sleep with dogs, and you’ll wake up with fleas.
Actually, Britain’s nuclear weapons are useless to the US. The US has more than enough for its own needs, and Britain’s nuclear detterent only really exists to give Britain a means to deter WMD aggression against itself in the event that America is unwilling to use hers in the defence of an ally (which, considering the stakes, is not altogether unplausible).
British conventional forces however, are strategically useful as far as the US is concerned, as they provide forces which are not composed of American citizens, and hence casualties amongst them would not be controversial to the US electorate....
There's no question of leaving NATO. No one has suggested we should. And Britain is still retaining a nuclear weapon capability (as is France). So there are other NATO members with "teeth".
And if you think about it, just how credible is Britain's "independent nuclear deterrent"? Can you think of any circumstance where Britain would ever use it without, at the very least, the tacit agreement of the USA? And if we need to have the agreement of the POTUS before we press the button, then just how "independent" is it?
Sinsofthesolarempire is right. Britain's conventional support is far more important to the US, militarily and politically, than four mediocre boomers, of which two (max) will be on station at any one time.
If the Brits elect the Lib Dems the destruction of England will be complete.
Nato's real "teeth" are NOT the engagement of nukes. If that were so, Al Qaida and the Taliban would have gone long ago. Force is useless unless it can be applied, and we cannot apply nukes against our current opponents. If conventional resources are being strained by the "piddling efforts" we are engaged in now, it stands to reason those resources need to be increased, because we can lose in Afghanistan, and lose big.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.