Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


In defence of nuclear arsenal

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 April 2009
BRITAIN must not abandon its independent nuclear deterrent in the face of the current financial and economic crisis, Defence Secretary John Hutton, pictured, warned yesterday.
Ministers have faced calls to scrap the £20 billion update of the Trident nuclear deterrent after Chancellor Alistair Darling revealed the dire state of the public finances in the Budget.

But in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research
, Mr Hutton, the MP for Barrow where nuclear submarines are built, said the deterrent was likely to be "vital" to national security for decades, and it would be "reckless" to get rid of it now. "The tough economic climate and the threat from international terrorism is leading some to say that Britain can no longer afford, or need, the protection provided by the nuclear deterrent that my generation enjoyed. That view is fundamentally misconceived," he said.

"If history has taught us anything, it is that economic turbulence is often followed by other changes: new balances of power; new tensions; new risks and threats – ones that can quickly lead to instability and the potential for state-based conflict.

"It is a bold person who believes the UK will face a threat to its territorial integrity from another state in the next 50 years. But it's a reckless one who rules it out. And I am not prepared to be reckless with our nation's security."

As expected, Mr Hutton signalled a strengthening of the special forces – the SAS and SBS – as part of a "rebalancing" of the armed forces to deal with sort of threat they were facing from al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan. "We need to decide the best balance for our armed forces over the next decade.

This could include greater investment in battle-winning capabilities, like our special forces, which can help to disrupt networks of terror that threaten our security.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 April 2009 12:31 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear defence
 
1

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 28/04/2009 01:07:00
So we have a nuclear deterrent, just in case.

Are we going to use it first?? I doubt that there would be any Westminster with the balls to do that, what with them always having one eye on the next election and how to get more votes.

Are we going to use it in retaliation against a nuclear strike. Be a waste of time having them by then wouldn't it.

As a deterrent?? Against what?? It certainly wouldn't stop any terrorist group. Against who?? Our total deterrent would have very limited effect on China, even Russia.

Who else?? Using it against Iran or North Korea would only precipitate attacks from Chins and/or Russia an any Arab country who has them. So they would never be used against a small nuclear nation.

I would like someone to identify just who these "deterrent" WMD's are protecting us from.
2

Edward,

28/04/2009 01:17:25
General Sir Hugh Beach, the former deputy Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces, atates that The submarines based on the Clyde and armed with Trident nuclear warheads should not be replaced but immediately scrapped, he didn’t mince his words. “Trident is no bloody use,” he said. “Let’s not waste money on it”.
3

W Smith,

Middle East 28/04/2009 03:30:12
The CND communists should just shut it.

You communists and your jihadists friends can run the country when and if you get elected by the people to do so.

Until then, shut it.

SNP fought and lost the Glenrothes by-election on an anti-nuclear ticket.

As did Labour's Michael Foot when he lost the General Election to Maggie the true Patriot and the enemy of all work-shy left wing Scots.

Peace be upon her.

BTW
The SNP have no problem with Pakistan and Iran having the technology its 'Perfidious Albion' (or treacherous Britain) that can't be trusted, eh Alex?
4

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 28/04/2009 04:29:26
I despair of seeing any rational debate on this subject in Scotland due to the inherently left wing bias of the main political parties currently strutting their stuff at Holyrood.
5

David MacVicar,

web 28/04/2009 04:56:25
More damage limitation propaganda.

These clowns are so transparent. After the top brass says Trident is useless and the radiation leaks are disclosed through FOI that westminster can't suppress this is about all we can expect from the Scotsman - toxic press releases!
6

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 28/04/2009 06:45:09
As I said, I would like someone to identify just who these "deterrent" WMD's are protecting us from.
7

Alan B,

28/04/2009 07:25:08
#4 Mercutio

Can you justify that? The tories are traditionally pro nuclear weapons. Labour have done a unturn and are now pro. The lib dems have tended to be pro extending the life but keeping nuclear weapons without replacing them with another system. Only the snp are consistently against them.

I agree we do not tend to have a particulary good debate about nuclear weapons but much of that comes from labour in westminster when it puts out lies about the situation and ties the whole thing to jobs when it is really about whether it is good for our defence.

Personally i was pro nuclear in the 80s during the cold war but think they have become outdated now. The uk only wants them to try to promote its political power and not for any real defence reason.

It undermines any pressure we want to place on other countries not to have nuclear weapons themselves. eg Iran.

On the other hand we need to put a proper coherent plan in place to promote peace and democracy and try to stop the trouble spots in the world. Strong conventional forces via the EU are necessary and strong enforcement of peace keeping etc.

I think that the problem with those against nuclear weapons is that they do not promote an alternative strategy. Conventional military interventions are more necessary if you go down the non nuclear route.

8

TWC,

28/04/2009 08:21:50
7 Alan B

Labour will not be in Westminster for long and I doubt that the tories would move work from Devonport.
When the GE comes all the SLAB MP and MSPs will start to get vague about Trident and Nuclear power.
I see the Brown resignation petition is now 6th largest at 20,395
9

pitpony,

musselburgh 28/04/2009 09:09:04
trust labour? they donot have there greasey fingers on the button. the nutters in the us of a does. the scare story,s have already started all the jobs that will be lost. #7 please keep eu out of it they will be wanting expences as soon as it goes to def con 2 at £200 per min !
10

TWC,

28/04/2009 09:23:27
Funny the Brown petition just went down the way from 20,749 to 20,743.

is that a retraction or are some being invalidated??
11

Miss H,

28/04/2009 09:52:57
3 You do realise you are calling a whole bunch of retired generals CND communists?

I mean real generals - not armchair generals like you.
12

Don Roberto,

28/04/2009 10:08:48
#6 For Scotland's Future.

Being one of a few members of the public to sit in on one of the Calman Commission beanos. I reckon there are a number of elderly Tories like Professor Sir David Edward still wrapped up in the mystique of the Cold War, who remain convinced that without Trident, Johnny Foreigner in the shape of Boris would simply sail up the Clyde and force us all to work in the salt mines...

Professor Sir David Edward is 76. Time is on our side.
13

Sgian Dubh,

28/04/2009 10:22:51
I was a submariner on a Polaris boat during the early 80's. At that time it was the Labour party who were standing in front of the CND rallies and the Faslane Peace Camp. It was Labour who were fervently against nuclear deterrent. What has changed now that they are the party in, so called, government? Are they suddenly aware of something they didn't know when in opposition? As far as I am aware, Tridend is not UK's 'Independant' deterrent, as we require USA permission to launch. And will likely be told who to launch against.
14

alanh,

ek 28/04/2009 10:55:56
Blatant nu liebore electioneering.

The defence secretary just happens to be the MP for the area that builds these nuclear subs. Therefore he says they are safe for all the workers in his constituency. If they are that safe then house them on the Thames as our country does not want them.
When will they stop this ridiculous waste of our limited resources.
We will NEVER launch nuclear weapons so why have them?

Its a shame there is no balance to this press release. I'm sure their must be some military expert out there somewhere that might think that our nuclear arsenal is useless and pointless
15

Eve,

Scotland 28/04/2009 11:38:58
So am I right in thinking. That there's a recession on, one that effects the banks, people face poverty and losing their house and the Westminster government are planing to spend £20million on nuclear weapons.

It's a mad world!!!

It's a mad world after all!!!
16

Queen D,

Glasgow 28/04/2009 11:50:57
Hello Eve! You mis-read that ,it is 20 BILLION!
Just a tad bigger than 20 million!
And you're right the UK world is mad, and no-one sane can fire these weapons.
We certainly can't because we have to wait to be told that we can fire them and at whom by our closest buddies!
here's hoping that Obama is sincere and not just a pretty mouthpiece.
17

Eve,

Scotland 28/04/2009 12:45:20
#16 Queen D: Opps!!! Aye £20Billion is indeed a lot more.

Their very similar spelling wise, though, hence my confusion.



18

Queen D,

Glasgow 28/04/2009 13:02:00
Eve and everyone else ,take yourself to Moriduras blog and watch the excellent Channel4 news report on the leaks.
It won't make you sleep easy but you should all be aware!
19

Ronald Penman,

Glasgow 28/04/2009 13:35:11
Er....Eve. The TOTAL spend throughout the lifetime of the Trident replacement programme is expected to exceed £100 BILLION. The final total is, at present,unknown!!
20

ExpatNL,

glasgow 28/04/2009 16:42:08


#18 Queen D,

No need to go to moridura's blog.
See it here:

http://tinyurl.com/leaks-faslane


21

Eve,

Scotland 28/04/2009 16:48:22
#19 Ronald Penman: Aye that sounds about write, the price they have in the beginning is just a fraction of the price when complete.

It's been show time and time again every thing these eejits plan is under budgeted for and they have the check to suggest that oor developed parliaments do efficency things.

What ever the price is it's too much and it's NOT just money wise too. Though the money figures are shocking.
22

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 01/05/2009 11:20:43
Maintaining a British "independent" (that's a laugh) nuclear weapons deterent is like attaching an expensive pair of boxing gloves to a sick old man (wearing a butcher's apron). Useless.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.