Posted on 06/21/2006 8:02:27 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Brown in favour of updating Trident
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 22/06/2006)
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.
A formal decision is not expected to be taken by the Cabinet until early next year, and Mr Blair has promised a full debate in Parliament and the country on updating the nuclear deterrent.
But Mr Brown's comments will be seen as a further sign that a decision in principle has already been taken by Mr Blair, who believes that renewing the country's nuclear defences will be one of the legacies of his premiership.
At Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, Gordon Prentice, Labour MP for Pendle, said it would be an "absolute outrage" if billions were "squandered" on a new generation of nuclear weapons without a vote by MPs.
Mr Blair confirmed that a decision about replacing Trident would be taken in this Parliament. "There should be the fullest possible debate on this issue," he said. "I am sure there will be."
Until now, Mr Brown has shown little interest in defence, and has been viewed with suspicion by the Armed Forces, who have voiced concern that Treasury pressure for economies has resulted in the forces being overstretched and short of vital equipment.
But the Chancellor has embarked on a campaign to show that he has the qualities to succeed Mr Blair.
His support for updating Trident represents a further break with Labour's past and his own socialist background.
When he first became a Labour MP in 1983, Labour was committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. His support for the nuclear deterrent could lead to demands for an alternative candidate to challenge the Chancellor if Mr Blair - as seems increasingly likely - steps down next year.
Mr Brown said he was committed to protecting Britain's security, including retaining the nation's independent nuclear deterrent.
Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman, claimed the Chancellor's speech was "just more spin designed to cast Gordon Brown as a statesman".
We should update all of our nuclear forces.
Dubya is probably murmuring in Tony Blair's ear, "Shut up, Tony!" He needs a frank discussion about nuclear force modernization like he needs a full-blown migraine.
US DoD has done that conversion/upgrade to their "dial-a-nuke" warheads, making them over into ground penetrators with variable yields, but that's about it -- other than the constant build-down and Trident => SSGN conversions.
I sometimes wish that every country in western Europe would build more short range nukes, just before my conscience intervenes. ;-)
They do, the but the lead time on a replacement is such that its sensible to start the process soon.
I concur completely, but I'm not sure Bush made the right play by ordering a $60 billion carve-out in 2001 (pre-9/11) from existing DoD priorities and programs (all Congressionally-approved and budgeted) for the SDI program.
Besides, I have a big, fat constitutional problem with his having done that. When Dick Nixon did it, it was called impoundment, and it was agreed at the time that impoundment was unconstitutional. This is impoundment-plus: "Not only am I, your President, going to impound the Interior Department budget, but I'm going to spend it all on export subsidies -- so there." I don't think you can wash these carve-outs constitutionally. That's a business-management technique, not a good-government technique.
Fifteen years ago they were talking about extending BUFF to 2010.....I'd fairly recently read about some of them being expected to serve past 2020.....but 2040?! Holy bat droppings, Batman! Those airplanes are antiques already; the examples flying now were built in the 1960's (G's and H's, I think, with most of the G models gone now).
On the other side of the chessboard, we see a lot of Russian designs being extended in service, too, including several Antonov transports and the Tu-95 "Bear". Not nearly as true for fighters and other high-G airframes, but you'd think all that vibration would put "Bears" and "Coots" and "Curls" out of business by now. IIRC, the Ilyushin Il-76 "Classic" jet transport is a 30-year-old design now, too, as are some examples of Boeing airliners, especially the 747 workhorse. Some 727's and 737's in third-world, second-tier airline service also have 60's build dates and high hours.
Aircraft, like cars, seem to be lasting a lot longer than they used to, 50 years ago. But a proposed retirement date after 2040 for the B-52 still sounds absolutely fantastic.
That was a unconfirmed rumor date. I have heard with advancements with new cruise missiles and new anti-radar technology that they would extend until 2040.
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.