Trident Talk

No doubt you’ll have heard that Gordon Brown has offered to cut his Trident missile-carrying submarines from four to three.  That’s an exact reduction of 25% so if the total long-term costs of replacing the fleet are estimated by the government to be around £65bn (disregarding independent estimations) and a quarter of those costs were slashed, they’d make a saving of £16bn, but maths being an illogical old thing, they’re telling us it will save between £3 to £5bn.  Well at least it would cover the £2bn cut that they’re going to make in the education budget.  That’s assuming they’ll use the saving wisely and not award it to fat-cat celebrity financial consultants or to pay off their second mortgages.

Once upon a moonshine ago, the then chancellor Gordon Brown was utterly opposed to replacing Trident.  He said so himself.  In some strongly worded words, he said, and I paraphrase, that the programme was unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound.  He also said a replacement was against British treaty obligations.  Some time later he made a 360° U-turn and became passionate about replacing our wonderful weapon of mass destruction.  Now he’s making a U-turn on his U-turn.  Well, a quarter of a U-turn at least, which means we may finally begin to stop being in breach of the NPT.

I feel obliged to say it’s a good start but if Brown was a really, really brave man, he would cancel the whole deal and abolish the lot.  Then global nuclear disarmament would look like a real possibility.  We don’t need Trident.  It’s a pointless deterrent.  Renewing and maintaining the Trident fleet was never a sensible plan.  It never made me feel safer.   No-one wanted it apart from the guys in the defense industry – you know, the good buddies of the Prime Ministers and the Presidents who made potloads of money from war and conflict.

Now, let’s just end the whole sorry thing and focus on real threats.  I’m not saying we shouldn’t invest in our country’s security. We most certainly should.  But I’m thinking more in terms of imminently real threats such as climate change and unsustainable runaway dependence on fossil fuels.

Just think what good £100 billion could do.


3 responses to this post.

  1. Sorry if I am a bit slow today, Earthpal, but was Brown referring to “replacing the fleet” or to “placing one of the subs on dry dock” or “send it to the scrap heap”, and the cost of upkeep of that “poor thing” being the sum saved?

    Please excuse me.


  2. Hi Jose, good to hear from you. I hope you’ve been well.

    Yes, I presume the saving will come from the non-maintenance of the scrapped sub. I’m not sure if it will be literally scrapped or put out to pasture. Reducing the number of subs will make no difference to Britain’s nuclear capabilities because one is a spare anyway.


  3. You’re right, but knowing what “they say” they are saving makes my blood curdle. So many billions, so many people homeless or starving…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: