Perhaps the Treasury are moving the Trident funds into the MoD’s budget, the MoD in effect getting more money but paying for Trident replacement.
No, didn’t think that was likely
Is a half rice/half chips moment looming where the MoD pay some and so does the Treasury?
In the war of words between now and the Comprehensive Spending Review, which, let’s face it, is what the SDSR actually is, the real position remains to be confirmed.
Anyway, here is a nice picture for the Liberal Democrats who will no doubt be popping the champagne corks on hearing the news.
Hat Tip to our commenters C and Andy for the head ups by the way
sack it then, and wait until these f*ckwits come back from an international conference where everyone is sniggering at the “little” people with grand ideas. As head of the navy do i want 2 carriers with planes on which can be used for all sorts including disaster relief etc, or something can’t be used for anything except as a threat and therefore realistically never used, bye bye subs, hello 20 billion for shiny things (like we’ll see 20 billion)
It will indeed be ugly, and personally i’d rather see the deterrent scrapped then have it consume yet more from the Defence budget proper.
I’m not sure the treasury realise what a dangerous game their playing. Here’s a number of scenarios I’ve been thinking about:
1, Current defence budget has to absorb whole cost of trident renewal – In this case military/MOD will just say we can’t afford it and will dispose of nuclear capability in order to preserve conventional capabilities
2, MOD gets some/all of the extra money necessary to fund trident renewal – In this case the military/MOD could still think hang on we’ve got this extra money to now play around with, lets re-allocate some of this to pay for some other toys that we want
Either way its not looking good if you consider CASD a necessity and in some respects makes the old Labour solution of a 3 boat nuclear deterrant look rather good right now. What you’re effectively doing is giving the military/MOD a say in how to use the funding for the nuclear deterrant i.e. beware you may not get exactly what you want!!
My opinion on the nuclear deterrant was always that since its such a hard thing to rebuild in a credible way once you lose it and in order to insure against an uncertain future, its a nice thing to have, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF CONVENTIONAL CAPABILITIES.
I’m hoping this is just a shot across the bow of Dr. Fox to play nice with the treasury
The idea that we will get new shiny things is naieve in the extreme.
Lets say we abolish trident, at most, trident replacement costs £4bn a year.
The Navy uses it to get its destroyer fleet back up to 12 over the next few years.
In 2015, the government cuts defence spending by £4bn, because the navy doesnt need 12 destroyers, it only needs 6.
Theres no such thing as a “defence budget”.
Thanks for the kitten pic, admin. I used to be a card-carrying LibDem!
One thing that always estranged me from my political party of choice is the general lack of thought put into defense (I recall in the early nineties a proposal to scrap the RN and replace it completely with a Coast Guard – you really have to wonder!).
In the talk about “Cold War Relics” recently, you all have to admit that SSBNs carrying SLBMs are at the pinnacle of that particular tree, as they are a weapon system designed *only* to blow an enemy’s homeland into radioactive ash.
Trident (and Polaris/Chevaline) were good options for this, as long as the list of enemies was short (i.e. USSR and/or China). But the list of nuclear armed potential enemies now includes Russia, China, Pakistan, India & North Korea. Furthermore the following are “nuclear capable”; Isreal, South Africa and Iran – with the latter bound to develop weapons in the next 5-10 years unless very strong sanctions are put up against them (unlikely). And not only that, but Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine all have or had ex-USSR warheads based on their soil – a possible source for terrorist “suitcase nukes”.
So, even though Trident has been de-targetted and can have launch coordinates reprogrammed in 15 minutes while at sea, and even if the deterrent provided is “sovereign” and controlled by the PM (god help us all). Can we guarrantee that one of the Trident boats, or the replacements, will be within 2,500nm of any of the above possible targets? I don’t believe so. And as has been pointed out, the system cannot possibly deter a nuclear armed terrorist organisation dispersed over multiple countries and with puppet operatives willing to die for the cause.
It’s clear that in a post-cold-war world there must be a more flexible deterrence than Trident. It may be, that – except against 1st tier nuclear powers – the best deterrent is a strategic conventional strike force available on permanent standby. I have to say that, as a non-serving onlooker, the most atractive proposition is an SSGN version of the Astutue (with an extended sail). This spreads out any deterrent more evenly between our potential enemies, and with the emergent members of the nuclear club, the relative lack of warhead density is not so much of a problem – deterrence is more a threat than a tactic.
I would go further, though. I beleive that any new SSBN/SSGN designs must be able to re-role the SLBM’s while at sea, that was the warheads could be stored separately to the means of delivery and allow launches of conventional munitions (kinetic energy darts, bunker buster bombs, flocks of flechettes linked together by secure comms to minimise the dispersion). These warheads would allow high value missions to destroy hardened targets to be prosecuted much more safely than using a conventional airforce. I’ve heard the argument that SLBM launch may provoke a nuclear escalation from Russia, but a single launch, as part of a clearly defined existing conflict against a “terror” or “failed” state? I don’t think so.
In short I think that this could be more of an “oppurtunity” than we all think. At the very least, the MOD turning round and saying “OK get rid of Trident, we don’t want it on those terme” would concentrate minds in the Foreign Office and the Cabinet. And in the medium term we could end up with a truly flexible and proportionate Strategic Strike capability, all without having to build any bombers!
Just my two’penneth worth.