Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Trident nuclear missiles are £20bn waste of money, say generals

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 06:48 AM
Original message
Trident nuclear missiles are £20bn waste of money, say generals
Britain's nuclear submarines are "completely useless" against modern warfare, and the £20bn spent on renewing them is a waste of money, retired senior military officers said yesterday.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.
...
Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight programme: "We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pinpoint accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do."
...
"The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism. It is a cold war weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/16/trident-is-20bn-waste-say-generals


Personally, I'd like to see most of the money just saved. But spending some on proper equipment for the troops in the role we ask them to do (eg vehicles that can withstand homemade mines) would be good.

The letter:

Sir, Recent speeches made by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and the previous Defence Secretary, and the letter from Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, David Owen and George Robertson in The Times on June 30, 2008, have placed the issue of a world free of nuclear weapons firmly on the public agenda. But it is difficult to see how the United Kingdom can exert any leadership and influence on this issue if we insist on a costly successor to Trident that would not only preserve our own nuclear-power status well into the second half of this century but might actively encourage others to believe that nuclear weapons were still, somehow, vital to the secure defence of self-respecting nations.

This is a fallacy which can best be illustrated by analysis of the British so-called independent deterrent. This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles. While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States.

Should this country ever become subject to some sort of nuclear blackmail — from a terrorist group for example — it must be asked in what way, and against whom, our nuclear weapons could be used, or even threatened, to deter or punish. Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face — particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear.

The much cited “seat at the top table” no longer has the resonance it once did. Political clout derives much more from economic strength. Even major-player status in the international military scene is more likely to find expression through effective, strategically mobile conventional forces, capable of taking out pinpoint targets, than through the possession of unusable nuclear weapons. Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics. Rather than perpetuating Trident, the case is much stronger for funding our Armed Forces with what they need to meet the commitments actually laid upon them. In the present economic climate it may well prove impossible to afford both.

Field Marshal Lord Bramall

General Lord Ramsbotham

General Sir Hugh Beach

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5525682.ece
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent article Ms. Volestrangler!
And I am very glad to see that you have acted on my suggestion to start a thread or two yourself.

Admirable!

But tell me,

Are the generals Evil Tory bastards? ;)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. As I'm sure you rembember from the past
I'm not 'Ms.', and I start threads when I see something worth getting a new discussion on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Please accept my apology
Is it Miss Volestrangler or Mrs Volestrangler?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I believe it's actually 'Mr.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Really? Muriel's an odd name for a Mr.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. I agree. And good to have it now out in the open, even in the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. General Lord Ramsbotham is a UFO nutter.
He once testified before a House of Commons security committee about 'alien lights' in the Rendelsham Forest incident.

Ufology nutter Nick Pope has dined out ever since on his crackpot theories re that incident which is still officially classified 'to protect Pentagon interests'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-18-09 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. The generals argument rather assumes that the 'situation we are in now'
Edited on Sun Jan-18-09 05:48 PM by fedsron2us
will pertain into the future. I also question whether the solution to the armies current logistical problems is more expenditure on conventional weapons. Might it not just be simpler to stop fighting futile aggressive wars. In addition those powers with large conventional forces also suffer from a continual temptation to use them. As for nuclear weapons being 'useless', one wonders whether the UK and the US governments would have been quite so keen on invading Iraq if Saddam had really possessed such weapons of mass destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC