baldysblog.co.uk

One of the oddest issues to come out of the current election campaign was raised by Nick Clegg who wants the Trident Replacement included in the Defence Review that will have to be undertaken after the General Election, whoever forms the next Government.

Although one may say that because of the projected cost, some £20bn, of course any politician would want to review it but then again and as Clegg seems to accept the need for a replacement but then strays into technical areas he is not competent in, he is raising the wrong issue or, not asking the right questions…

Nukes…

Nuclear weapons are an abomination and in military terms, virtually unusable but Clegg rather than talking about “Nukes on the Cheap” should pose the real question, “Do we need and want to remain a Nuclear Armed Country ?” This is the issue that needs to be faced instead of like children hiding under the bed clothes, refuse to face reality, the bloody things exist, Pandora’s Box has been opened. The debate is not about the “delivery system” but about whether being nuclear armed delivers us any benefits when set against the costs.

To say that “Trident” should be included in a Defence Review is nonsense, to say that as part of a Defence Review we ask whether a nuclear option is included in our Defence Posture is correct and no, I’m not splitting hairs here. Elected politicians should be the “Tribunes of the People” but their role is to establish the “What” rather than the “How” which should be delegated to the technical experts in any given area. Politicians should not dabble and interfere in areas outside of their competence.

Personally I suspect that it is merely another illustration that Nick Clegg is distinctly lightweight in his thinking and approach to most things. This sudden onset of him being popular has rather caught him like a Rabbit in the headlights. Whether the £20bn costs of a Trident replacement prove to be true over the next 20 years is neither here nor there when set against a Public Sector funding Deficit of £165bn which needs dealing with right now.

Trident

It is entirely wrong to label Trident a Cold War weapon and therefore irrelevant to today’s circumstances and there are two obvious scenarios to consider, Iran and North Korea, not because they might threaten us directly with Nuclear tipped missiles but they are both “Rouge Regimes” who would be perfectly prepared to supply fissile material to be used by terrorists in a “Dirty Bomb” detonated on the streets of London.

Going back to Polaris, there have been about 3 major reviews of submarine launched ballistic missiles from a purely military perspective and despite the cost, it still has come out as the most effective system. The Cleggy “Cruise Missile” version is laughable because of a 1,000 mile maximum range compared with a Trident 7,500 on top of which cruise missiles are sub sonic and can be shot down. Although the Astute submarine can launch cruise missiles, we would be faced with the development costs of a new cruise missile to produce a sub standard weapon and deterrent.

A surface ship capable of launching Trident type missiles is an obvious possibility but “obvious” is the problem – a big fat sitting duck. Air launched weapons were abandoned as a concept simply because of cost, they will get shot down, how many do you need to ensure sufficient get through ? In our densely populated islands, land launched ICBMs has never been a feasible proposition. One should never forget Khrushchev’s threat to “Sink that aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe”, yes folks he meant us because it would take very few ICBMs to take the UK out of the picture.

Submarine Launched

This is where the “Trident Concept” extends our boarders and increases our security because at sea, they are pretty undetectable as a pair of British and French nuclear armed submarines demonstrated last year by a minor collision underwater in the Atlantic. Also one should accept the logic that this type of platform is now ‘standard’ for the major nuclear powers.

That we in this World need to get rid of these awful weapons is a certainty but that will never be achieved by Unilateral disarmament which remains as daft a concept today as it was back in “CND Times”. It is not just the weapons systems that need to be controlled, it is the materials involved that need a fool proof system of monitoring and as both Iran and North Korea demonstrate, it is never going to be easy when Nutters are in charge of countries.

Even if the 20bn figure became 40bn and in 20 years time and just as it was about to come on stream, a cast iron global Nuclear Disarmament Treaty came into force, it would not be wasted money if this scourge was lifted from the shoulders of mankind, it would be a wise investment and far cheaper than a war where they were used.