This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/29/trident-renewal-philip-hammond
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Trident: the bloody union jack | |
| (about 14 hours later) | |
| "We've got to have this thing … whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody union jack on top of it." Ernest Bevin was present at the creation of Britain's bomb, and the debate has become no more rational since. In his memoirs, Tony Blair concedes that "the force of common sense" pointed against renewing a weapon whose purpose was "non-existent in terms of military use" – but he decided to renew anyway. Now it's the coalition's turn. Without any real pretence of argument, defence secretary Philip Hammond on Monday pulled out the chequebook to make the latest down payment on a murderous cold war relic. | "We've got to have this thing … whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody union jack on top of it." Ernest Bevin was present at the creation of Britain's bomb, and the debate has become no more rational since. In his memoirs, Tony Blair concedes that "the force of common sense" pointed against renewing a weapon whose purpose was "non-existent in terms of military use" – but he decided to renew anyway. Now it's the coalition's turn. Without any real pretence of argument, defence secretary Philip Hammond on Monday pulled out the chequebook to make the latest down payment on a murderous cold war relic. |
| Threatening to slaughter cities full of civilians was morally questionable even within the rules of the standoff with the Soviet Union; 20 years after that great game crumbled, and with no minister able to say whom they might fancy threatening in the same way in future, it is beyond the pale. In a world of footloose threats, Mr Hammond's claim that a great clunking ballistic missile remains "the ultimate safeguard of our national security" is ludicrous. Then there is the price tag – which on some estimates could be £100bn over 30 years. With retired generals lining up to heap martial disdain on this budget-swallowing white elephant, there is no concealing the controversy. Any bean-counting minister worth their salt would seize on it to postpone or better diminish some big bills. Recall that this is a government that has tripled tuition fees, shredded careers advice and set about clearing the poor from inner London – all on grounds of economic necessity. With Trident, by contrast, it displays a hot-headed rush to spend before thinking, which approaches oniomania. | Threatening to slaughter cities full of civilians was morally questionable even within the rules of the standoff with the Soviet Union; 20 years after that great game crumbled, and with no minister able to say whom they might fancy threatening in the same way in future, it is beyond the pale. In a world of footloose threats, Mr Hammond's claim that a great clunking ballistic missile remains "the ultimate safeguard of our national security" is ludicrous. Then there is the price tag – which on some estimates could be £100bn over 30 years. With retired generals lining up to heap martial disdain on this budget-swallowing white elephant, there is no concealing the controversy. Any bean-counting minister worth their salt would seize on it to postpone or better diminish some big bills. Recall that this is a government that has tripled tuition fees, shredded careers advice and set about clearing the poor from inner London – all on grounds of economic necessity. With Trident, by contrast, it displays a hot-headed rush to spend before thinking, which approaches oniomania. |
| The £350m contracts confirmed on Monday represent a second tranche of a total of £3bn of work for updating Britain's atomic weapons, which were first signalled after a strategic defence review whose scope was uniquely restricted to bar consideration of this most strategic of arms. Committing more money now specifically to the "submarine-based nuclear deterrent" that Mr Hammond insists must continuously and indefinitely be maintained at sea is doubly pre-emptive. Seeing as those submarines will inescapably remain based in Scotland (no one pretends a bomb with a St George's cross on the top could fly) the move prejudges an independence referendum in a country where opposition to Trident is mainstream. But it pre-empts, too, Whitehall's own Liberal Democrat-inspired review into alternatives, which is about to report. And even accepting the misguided requirement for a deterrent, there are alternatives – reducing the number of submarines, keeping them in dry docks, or, at the more radical end, retention of the art but not the artefact, so something like Trident could be quickly assembled in the event of a new cold war. None of this will now be considered. Nick Clegg angrily insists that no final decision has been made, but how he ought to regret his own dispatch of the sole Lib Dem at the MoD in the reshuffle. | The £350m contracts confirmed on Monday represent a second tranche of a total of £3bn of work for updating Britain's atomic weapons, which were first signalled after a strategic defence review whose scope was uniquely restricted to bar consideration of this most strategic of arms. Committing more money now specifically to the "submarine-based nuclear deterrent" that Mr Hammond insists must continuously and indefinitely be maintained at sea is doubly pre-emptive. Seeing as those submarines will inescapably remain based in Scotland (no one pretends a bomb with a St George's cross on the top could fly) the move prejudges an independence referendum in a country where opposition to Trident is mainstream. But it pre-empts, too, Whitehall's own Liberal Democrat-inspired review into alternatives, which is about to report. And even accepting the misguided requirement for a deterrent, there are alternatives – reducing the number of submarines, keeping them in dry docks, or, at the more radical end, retention of the art but not the artefact, so something like Trident could be quickly assembled in the event of a new cold war. None of this will now be considered. Nick Clegg angrily insists that no final decision has been made, but how he ought to regret his own dispatch of the sole Lib Dem at the MoD in the reshuffle. |
| This government inherited a commitment for overpriced aircraft carriers of dubious use, and was stung by appalling contracts that prevented a rational rethink. Yet it now moves to bind its successors into another ruinous purchase by sinking so much expenditure today that cancellation later becomes unthinkable. The supposed urgency is entirely bogus, and out of line with deterrence theory. No one knows how long it takes an old Trident sub to rust. Any enemy has to take them seriously for so long as there is any chance they might work; just ask the Iraqis who paid the price for mere rumours about non-existent WMDs. | This government inherited a commitment for overpriced aircraft carriers of dubious use, and was stung by appalling contracts that prevented a rational rethink. Yet it now moves to bind its successors into another ruinous purchase by sinking so much expenditure today that cancellation later becomes unthinkable. The supposed urgency is entirely bogus, and out of line with deterrence theory. No one knows how long it takes an old Trident sub to rust. Any enemy has to take them seriously for so long as there is any chance they might work; just ask the Iraqis who paid the price for mere rumours about non-existent WMDs. |
| But then the whole Trident argument is bogus. Even at a time when other aspects of foreign policy – such as over Iran – are breaking with blind whither-thou-goest Atlanticism, the ossified Orwellian terms of the nuclear discussion go unchallenged by government and opposition alike. Our politicians don't always get Britain's place in the world right, but they can at least debate it. With the bomb, however, the sole test remains the bloody union jack. | But then the whole Trident argument is bogus. Even at a time when other aspects of foreign policy – such as over Iran – are breaking with blind whither-thou-goest Atlanticism, the ossified Orwellian terms of the nuclear discussion go unchallenged by government and opposition alike. Our politicians don't always get Britain's place in the world right, but they can at least debate it. With the bomb, however, the sole test remains the bloody union jack. |