PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Nuclear (trident replacement) do we need one?
Old 4th Dec 2006, 22:49
  #36 (permalink)  
Jackonicko
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,198
Received 55 Likes on 11 Posts
How much real discussion has there been, I wonder?

The Beeb reported that:

"The options of changing to a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system had been considered and ruled out.

Instead the system would remain one based on a fleet of submarines which carry the Trident missiles, each of which can be fitted with a number of nuclear warheads.

Mr Blair said between £15bn and £20bn would be spent on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The submarines would take 17 years to develop and build, and would last until about 2050.

He said the UK would also join the US programme to extend the life of the Trident missiles until 2042 - and would then "work with" the US on successor missiles."


Nick Robinson's weblog says:

"Just what were the Cabinet doing at their lunchtime meeting today? In theory they've been discussing whether to renew or replace our nuclear deterrent. I say "in theory" since it's hard to see what the point of the discussion was.
The White Paper outlining the government's proposals is being published two-and-a-half hours after the Cabinet meeting ended. An hour-and-a-half before that, journalists had been invited to read the document at a Ministry of Defence "lock-in" (so-called because you can read the document but not leave the building or use your phone or laptops until after it's published).
Is it just possible that the document had been printed before the Cabinet met? When I asked the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, he insisted that he would not comment on "process".
This "process" matters, since ministers have made much of taking this vital and costly decision in an open, transparent and democratic way - they point out that the Cabinet have discussed the issue, there is a White Paper and there will be a vote in the Commons.
"So what?" you may ask. If you'd been around the last time a Labour government "updated" our deterrent you might think differently. Harold Wilson's government extended the life of Polaris with the Chevaline programme. Not only did he not have a vote, not only did he not even tell Parliament or the public, he didn't even tell the Cabinet. A handful of ministers took the decision which many members of the Cabinet and most MPs only learnt of when, years later, a Tory Government front bench spokesman revealed it.
Before today, Tony Blair's Cabinet did have discussion on what Number 10 calls "the context" of today's decision and Cabinet ministers have all had the opportunity to meet with the foreign and defence secretaries to discuss the likely contents of the White Paper.
There has been, however, no Cabinet debate about the government's detailed proposals. Why? Number 10 won't say. It's worth noting that the last time a decision was handled in this way was the assessment on whether to scrap the pound and join the Euro. The theory then was that it was easier to handle people's worries in individual meetings rather than around the Cabinet table."


Notaboff,

The point is that manned air with a good stand off missile could hit all conceivable and relevant targets - and Moscow, probably, though Moscow is no longer either.

And I'll bet you that HiFly comes in cheaper than £25 Bn, while the new subs and their weapons will come in at much more than that.
Jackonicko is offline