You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Britain to renew nuclear arsenal despite revolt
2007-03-15
LONDON - BritainÂ’s parliament is expected to approve a new nuclear arsenal on Wednesday but Prime Minister Tony Blair may have to rely on opposition votes to push his plans through. Blair is convinced Britain needs to renew its nuclear deterrent, despite deep-rooted opposition within his Labour Party which could see scores of Labour lawmakers voting against him.

The government argues Britain must keep atomic weapons because potential threats from Iran, North Korea or nuclear terrorists mean abandoning them now could be a costly mistake -- even if there is no current threat. Blair dismissed opponents’ arguments that Britain is undermining hopes for international nuclear disarmament by buying a new generation of nuclear missiles. “There is absolutely no evidence whatever that if Britain now renounced its independent nuclear deterrent that would improve the prospects of getting multilateral disarmament ... I think the reverse is the case,” he told parliament.

BritainÂ’s nuclear arsenal is the smallest among the five U.N. Security Council permanent members who are legally recognised as nuclear states under the non-proliferation treaty. It consists of four British-built Vanguard-class submarines that carry 16 US-supplied Trident long-range missiles, armed with British-built nuclear warheads. The submarines are due to go out of service in about 2024.

The government wants to spend up to 20 billion pounds ($39 billion) on three or four nuclear-armed submarines to replace them, saying it must act quickly to have a replacement ready in time.

Blair has a majority of 67 in the 646-seat lower house. The revolt over Trident could be the biggest since nearly 140 Labour legislators voted against going war in Iraq. Jon Trickett, a Labour legislator who has put forward an amendment calling for further debate on TridentÂ’s replacement, said he expected many more than 34 Labour members of parliament to rebel against the government. A revolt on that scale could leave Blair dependent on the opposition Conservative Party to push through his plans. The Conservatives back renewing BritainÂ’s nuclear arsenal.

Idiots Critics say the money could be better spent beefing up BritainÂ’s conventional forces or on improving public services.
Because all the money spent on the NHS has worked so well, you should throw more at it.
A deep hostility to nuclear weapons runs through the Labour Party, which espoused unilateral nuclear disarmament until the late 1980s. Nigel Griffiths, deputy leader of the lower house of parliament and a member of BlairÂ’s government, and Jim Devine, a ministerial aide, have resigned in protest at replacing Trident.
Posted by:Steve White

#10  "The government argues Britain must keep atomic weapons because potential threats from Iran, North Korea or nuclear terrorists mean abandoning them now could be a costly mistake -- even if there is no current threat."

How nice to see that someone in Britain still has a pulse an IQ above room temperature.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-03-15 18:36  

#9  No, exJAG, I don't see that coming but I don't think it would be necessary either. Submission to the diktats from Brussels isn't and cannot be required in cases that would affect national survival. The EUnuchs would not like Britain buying American but trying to do something about it legally could be tied up in the courts for decades, assuming the British wished to do so. There's no way they get expelled over this and the day something like this happens (and I believe it will), it's a giant step toward the dissolution of the EU.
Posted by: Mac   2007-03-15 17:52  

#8  Re: Seafarious #3 comment: Metric knotmeters, that's a funny term, LOL!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-03-15 14:28  

#7  Oh, if you're talking about extricating Britain from the EU altogether, Mac, I agree. Realistically, however, I just don't see that on the horizon. Do you?
Posted by: exJAG   2007-03-15 12:27  

#6  No, exJAG, a stout Atlanticist government would have the option that all British governments have, and which one of them will soon have to use if Britain is to remain even nominally free: tell the EU to go to straight to Hell and do as they damned well please. And if the EU doesn't like it, tell them to come and do something about it.
Posted by: Mac   2007-03-15 10:27  

#5  If they have money to buy new nuclear weapons, any chance they'll find the money to hire more troops... and equip them properly?
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-03-15 08:57  

#4  Shieldwolf, the regulations requiring procurement from EU rather than US sources were imposed by Brussels. The British Parliament's function is no longer to run the country, but to rubber-stamp EU diktats, providing a veneer of democracy. The EU's number one defense goal is to achieve "interdependence" among member states; right now, this translates into driving a wedge between Britain and the US. Much as I can't stand Labour, this wasn't their fault. Even the staunchest Atlanticist government couldn't stop this freight train.
Posted by: exJAG   2007-03-15 03:08  

#3  Apparently, it is ,easier, cheaper to design and build a new sub than outfit an old sub with metric knotmeters...
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-03-15 00:56  

#2  The British under Labour have painted themselves into a corner with their "Buy European" programs for military hardware : their interoperability with US forces decreases each year now, because of the lack of features inherent in US systems. The Brits have legislation on the books that makes it nearly impossible to buy any American built systems nowadays; and they want to have all new major ship production done within the EU. Also, the latest series of British avionics is NOT compatible with US series but is compatible with the European standard. The only reason the Brits are still in the F-35 program is that they have research and development funding through some of the British companies, and co-production agreements with the US building firms.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-03-15 00:52  

#1  Okay, I'll bite - the Brits [afaik] like our TRIDENT MISSLES but don't wanna buy TRIDENT SUBS???
The Brits want 3-4 brand spankin' new, Brit-built boomers which will be ready by 2020-2024 in order to be decommissioned circa 2050???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-03-15 00:40  

00:00