We don't need Trident, we need a whole new plan

Mike Ion Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:10:54 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

This is the title of Martin Kettle's excellent piece in today's Guardian.

In summary Kettle takes the view that the choice facing MPs next week is not between keeping Trident or getting rid of Trident, or between keeping a nuclear deterrent or going unilateral. It's not even a costs question. The choice, says Kettle, is between drifting along and then being forced to make a decision out of necessity or trying to carve a more modern and more effective security policy within Europe.

I agree. To my mind there is absolutely no need to renew Trident now. What we should and could be doing is using the debate to re-direct our own  foreign and defence policy towards Europe and the NATO community.

Now is the time to be bold. As our present Leader once told us; as a party we are at our best when at our boldest.






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
We don't need Trident, we need a whole new plan | 5 comments (5 topical)

Re: We don't need Trident (#1)

by JamesM on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:56:34 AM GMT

I was interested in Kettle's article right up until he suggests that what stands in the way of a closer defence relationship with 'Europe' - not actually an homogenous force - is Rupert Murdoch. That's really a rather pathetic analysis.

The fact is that (with the exception of France) we have no partners in Europe who are sufficiently serious about defence either in terms of expenditure or willingness to deploy troops.

Kettle doesn't explain the advantages of realigning ourselves away from the US and towards the EU. Perhaps he regards that shift as obviously correct, but I don't and it would have been nice if he'd explain what he sees as the benefits of such a move. Neither is there any acknowledgement that there might be more than one view of what Europe should be. Tony Blair has shown a willingness to develop Europe's military potential within the framework of NATO. The French are more inclined towards l'Europe-puissance, an autonomous European great power. When Europe's only two serious military powers can't agree there is bound to be little movement. Suggesting that it's all Rupert Murdoch's fault might play well in The Guardian, but it doesn't contribute very much to the debate.


Re: We don't need Trident (#3)

by MM on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:14:47 PM GMT

People have rather short-term memories, let's just remember that is was Blair who proposed the defence initiative at the Anglo-French summit at St Malo in Decemeber 1998.  With the promotion of the European Security and Defence Initiative (ESDI).  This was despite press scepticism and the various concerns that America had.
But as an above poster mentioned, will the rest of Europe really pull it's weight?  I'm as pro-European as anybody.  But we have seen the reluctance of a number of European countries to committ troops to Afganistan and also to Iraq despite there now being a UN mandate.  Ditto during the recent Lebanon crisis we herd much hand-wringing from the EU/France but when the push came to shove on troop numbers where was the beef?  I do'nt know what individual European countries spend on defence but I would guess it's significantly less than Britain.  It's a nice dream to say let's have a European defence policy.  But we really should look at the lessons of Afganistan etc before we start make such rash and idealistic comments.


[ Parent ]

Re: We don't need Trident, we need (#2)

by Glass House on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:56:37 AM GMT

We should keep Trident and work more closely with Europe on defence. I don't think it's either/or


Re: We need Trident (#4)

by JR on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:03:02 PM GMT

Failing to renew Trident isn't being 'bold' - it's just being weak and foolish.


Re: We don't need Trident (#5)

by Simon Morley on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:36:30 PM GMT

It seems to me there are serious issues here, but given the seriousness of the issue and that the best advice is that work needs to start now to maintain deterrence the vote should be yes. Bringing the issue in to the public domain is a significant step forward. But there is definitely the need for more transparency. Suggestions that additional work has been done but must be kept secret are not helpful, it creates the suggestion the defence establishment may be simply displaying its natural conservatism. There is also the question that given time is required for targeting, is there also time for Parliament to meet to decide to deploy the deterrent. So I would support commencing work, which at this stage will not be hugely expensive, but keeping the whole issue of nuclear weapons under careful public scrutiny.


We don't need Trident, we need a whole new plan | 5 comments (5 topical)