BRITAIN'S decision to spend £20 billion on renewing its independent nuclear deterrent was last night challenged by a group of retired senior military officers, who branded the Trident system "completely useless" against modern threats.
The former head of the armed forces, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued in a letter to a London newspaper that the nuclear deterrent is no longer truly independent and does not guarantee Britain a seat at the top table
of international diplomacy in the UN Security Council.
The sums being spent on replacing the ageing submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used on conventional weapons that are much needed, they suggested.
"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the letter stated.
"Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."
Lord Ramsbotham, a retired army general, who also signed the letter, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in 2007.
Lord Ramsbotham said: "We want to have a proper argument about this.
"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."
