Posted on 10/31/2005 7:47:12 AM PST by F14 Pilot
Tony Blair is facing a political backlash over his decision to order a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace the ageing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of pounds.
Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight against his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war.
Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs who object to nuclear weapons on principle.
It includes senior figures in the military, who question whether this is the best way to spend a tight military budget.
A senior defence department source told the Independent that there was "a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the long-term role of the armed forces and whether a nuclear deterrent was still needed.
The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost.
An indication of the sums involved was revealed last week when the Defence Secretary, John Reid, released updated figures showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a £2bn budget for the next three years.
The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged £300m a year, at current prices, since 2000.
Next year's costs will jump to £507m, rising still higher to about £1.5bn over the next two years.
Officially, the task of Aldermaston's scientists is to ensure that the Trident fleet is kept in working order.
Their real task, according to military sources, is to make sure that the scientific know-how is in place to create a whole new generation of nuclear weapons as soon as a political decision has been made.
The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go ahead with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to exceed £10bn, but that he was delaying the announcement until after the general election.
In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen" to the views of MPs before making afinal decision.
However, both he and Mr Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will be given an opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue.
The "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair began at the end of last week when Mr Reid's parliamentary private secretary, Siobhain McDonagh, sent an email to all Labour MPs inviting anyone concerned about nuclear weapons to meet the Defence Secretary in groups of six at a time.
Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years, a decision on whether to replace it has to be made much sooner, because of the long"lead-in" time needed to develop and test new weapons.
Mr Blair is thought to be determined to have the matter settled before he leaves 10 Downing Street.
He believes that Britain owes it to the US to remain a member of the nuclear club.
Yesterday, Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, held talks at Chequers with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about the worsening relations with Iran.
The US government, backed by Britain, is intent on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Critics say Britain's case is weakened if Mr Blair insists on rebuilding Britain's nuclear arsenal.
Three Labour MPs - Gordon Prentice, Paul Flynn and John Austin - have drawn up a resolution questioning the cost of Trident, and have demanded a vote on it at one of the meetings whichLabour MPs hold every Monday.
Mr Flynn, a member of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union, said: "We haven't got any enemies that we could possibly want to aim nuclear weapons at now.
The case that John Reid has given for these weapons is that we might possibly have the right sort of enemy in 15 years time, which doesn't seem like a good reason for spending billions of pounds.
Our future role is going to be as peacekeepers, in which we perform better than anyone else.'"Last week, Mr Prentice met the chairman of the parliamentary party, Ann Clwyd, who urged him to drop the idea of forcing a vote, fearing that it would give an impression of a divided Labour Party.
She also warned them that they would probably be defeated, and that even if they won, they would not alter government policy.
"We said we were prepared to be reasonable.
If she didn't want a vote in the parliamentary Labour Party, then John Reid should come to come to the Commons so that we could have a vote there," Mr Prentice said.
If they are not promised a Commons vote, the rebels have marked 31 October as they day they will force a vote among MPs.
Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "This is at a time when they are going to cut down on both the navy and the air force.
It requires a whole review of the nuclear stock and what it is for, when even the Americans are developing different types of nuclear weapons.
"But there is also the politics and the macho posturing, and the issue of jobs, which we will hear a lot about."Asked about the reason for the doubling of Aldermaston's budget, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The planned expenditure is aimed at maintaining key capabilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment to ensure that we can safely support the Trident warhead throughout its planned in-service life.
"In the absence of the ability to undertake live nuclear testing, given that the UK has signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is necessary to invest in the facilities at AWE which will provide continuing assurance that the existing Trident warhead stockpile is reliable and safe."
ping
Isn't the Trident system the one Mr. No-Pants president handed over to the Chinese, gratis?
Good Lord. The ignorance of that statement is appalling. You have terrorists detonating themselves in London, you have at least two radical anti-western countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons and delivery systems and you have the behemoth of China building modern weapon systems at a rate not seen since WWII.......and you want to rid your military of the most effective deterrence weapon in existence?
To bad the pressure is on the British to unilaterally disarm, and not the Chinese or the Russians.
The Lefties may win in Britain.
In which case the EU's sole nuclear capacity will be controlled by Paris.
There is no chance in Hell that France is EVER going to give up its nuclear arsenal, for anybody. It's the sine qua non of French national secuirty against large powers.
Why would the British be so foolish as to want to simply fritter away their own nuclear safeguard?
The answer seems to be simply a mental disease of the Left in the Anglo-Saxon world. The Anglo-Saxon Left simply cannot seem to fathom the threats imposed by large, aggressive powers who will not renounce war.
There are dolerats out there without enough money for their daily heroin hits and Blair wants to buy Tridents? Absurd . . .
To our British friends: welcome to official third world status.
Iran, Pakistan, India and, most probably, Al Qaeda, will effectively be able to dictate terms without a credible counter threat.
Churchill would be so proud.
France will just let it slowly deteriorate just like their fighter and bomber wings that are about 5% (or less) readiness.
None of them can afford to modernize their already pathetically weak forces because of the weight of their social programs and labor unions.
At least Britain maintains their dignity.
"You have terrorists detonating themselves in London, you have at least two radical anti-western countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons and delivery systems and you have the behemoth of China building modern weapon systems at a rate not seen since WWII.......and you want to rid your military of the most effective deterrence weapon in existence?"
Well, the terrorists already detonated themselves and didn't seem particularly deterred by the threat of a nuclear response (there was never much chance of Blair nuking Leeds to be fair). Not sure we have enough weapons to deter China from anything. And the deterrence effect of other countries who may be pursuing nuclear weapons is theoretical at best.
Basically, they're not aimed at anyone, and they're not deterring anyone. It's unlikely that we can even launch the things without American authorisation, unlike the French who spent vastly more money originally to develop an independent system. Trident is only of use as a status symbol, an attempt to continue to portray power. At a time when our soldiers in Iraq are suffering from lack of proper equipment it's an absurd allocation of resources.
The state of French military finances is not so bad.
The force de frappe is the pillar of French national security, and it will not be allowed to wither.
Also, the French economy is growing. Slowly, but growing nevertheless. The current systems could stand to improve, but the country is not falling apart.
<< Too bad the pressure is on the British to unilaterally disarm, and not the Chinese or the Russians.
The Lefties may win in Britain. >>
Are you kidding?
The lefties won in Britain almost a hundred years ago and have absolutely owned operated and controlled the place lock stock and barrel for sixty years, since Atlee became prime minister.
Since then there has been only one honest and courageous politician, Enoch Powell -- and the ignorant bastards ran him out of town on a tumbril.
Since Atlee those few of the epidemically alcoholic and indolent Brits who manage to spend a little of their time even somewhat sober haven't even bothered to do their own "man's work." Everything that requires either brain or brawn -- including those of their women who bother to bathe -- being done by former colonials of one ethnicity or another. Mainly Celt-descended Australasians, South Africans, Kenyans and Rhodesians and the like.
This guy holds the foresight of yesterday. What a boob. Aim them when you do ya pinko.
Interesting post, let me understand correctly. Your soldiers do not have proper equipment, you military is in disarray and maintaining nuclear weapons and the delivery system, Royal Navy submarines, isn't feasible.....because your launch codes come from Washington D.C. and it's a status symbol to have the ability to annihilate entire countries......
A people that won't defend itself will either perish or be enslaved.
Great Britain and our nation, are 2 countries that should not suffer that fate. Israel is another.
Err, what's your question?
Well, I guess I don't have one. By all means, eliminate all you military resources, bring home and disband the soldiers and junk the Royal Navy and it's nukes. Presto, Britain has saved billions of taxpayer money that can now be spent on domestic issues......
There are a handful of countries that have significant militaries with projection of force capability. England, America, China, India, Russia, Pakistan. There are some others with significant militaries without the projection of force aspect. Those with the projection of force capability are reliant on international commerce for their existing and future health and wealth and know it. All the others are also reliant but choose to rely on somebody else to preserve order. Who knows about quaternion output star trackers? England, America, China, India, Russia, Pakistan. Nobody else.
I guess I have read too many history books. Projection of force takes more than military IMHO, it also requires an industrial base and a knowledgeable workforce that can sustain the military. Your list narrows very quickly under those circumstances, and not necessarily to England's nor the U.S.'s advantage.....
"By all means, eliminate all you military resources, bring home and disband the soldiers and junk the Royal Navy and it's nukes. Presto, Britain has saved billions of taxpayer money that can now be spent on domestic issues......"
I was suggesting that the resources being spent on Trident could be more spent in a more effective manner appropriate to our military needs. I'm not sure how you get from my suggestion that the funds could be better spent ensuring that our soldiers who are actually in harms way have the very best support and equipment to disbanding the army...
No; that was Aegis the chinese already has the Trident info.. because of their friends the other democrats.. i.e. sale of ball bearing machinery and super computers.. and other machinery that made it all possible.. to be a real world military threat.. the chinese don't need spys they can buy all the spies they need domestically in the U.S..
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.