Generals add their fire to Clegg’s attack on Trident - Money spent on Trident can’t go on troops

Source: The Times (UK)

Britain should be prepared to scrap its nuclear deterrent, a group of generals write in The Times today, pushing the future of Trident to the forefront of the election.

The generals say that the next government would threaten both frontline Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the £80 billion required to replace the fleet of submarines.

Their intervention, although nonpolitical, offers timely support for Nick Clegg, who goes into tomorrow night’s foreign affairs debate with Gordon Brown and David Cameron as the only party leader arguing against a like-for-like replacement.

Writing in The Times, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach and Major-General Patrick Cordingley express “deep concern” that the future of Trident has been excluded from the Strategic Defence Review that will follow the election. They caution that suppressing discussion of the issue or dismissing alternatives would be “a major strategic blunder”.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7103318.ece

---

The flash presentation below gives a really good timeline of the British history of nukes (don't have the volume too high before clicking, though)...

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/flash/trident/index.html">

Money spent on Trident can’t go on troops

Four former senior (British) military commanders ask if our nuclear deterrent is value for money

Edwin Bramall, David Ramsbotham, Hugh Beach, Patrick Cordingley

It is to be welcomed that all the leading political parties are committed to conducting a comprehensive strategic defence review after the election. This clearly must follow a detailed evaluation of the threats that this country faces today and in the future.

However, it is of deep concern that the question of the Trident replacement programme is at present excluded from this process. With an estimated lifetime cost of more than £80 billion, replacing Trident will be one of the most expensive weapons programmes this country has seen. Going ahead will clearly have long-term consequences for the military and the defence equipment budget that need to be carefully examined.

Given the present economic climate, in which the defence budget faces the prospect of worrying cuts, and that we have already an estimated hole in the defence equipment budget of some £35 billion, it is crucial that a review is fully costed and looks critically at all significant planned defence spending.

The debate has shifted significantly since the 2007 decision to proceed with replacing Trident. Internationally there is a growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces, starting with the US and Russia, but with the smaller nuclear states following, is the way to achieve international security.

Continues: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7103196.ece

I could understand why the Brits would want to dump it. (Did I mention we're paying around $2.8 billion a sub now? And that we get two a year?)