Replacing Trident - another victory for poodle politics?

So Tony Blair and his (presumed) certain successor have announced that Britain is to spend up to £25 BILLION (pounds) on a replacement for the Trident underwater missile system which has been the mainstay of our nuclear defence capability since 1980 as a successor to the old Polaris missile system.



One has to ask,regardless of one's particular view about independent nuclear deterrents, why? We cannot launch them without American permission and so any military engagement involving the use of Trident missiles would never go ahead without American active participation. OK well assuming there are grounds for the use of such missiles, we are a poor country compared to the US, so why don't we just allow big Uncle Sam to look after us when such occasions demand and save the bread - its a lot of money for a nation which needs new hospitals, improved social service care and a whole host of improvements to our infra structure - for which £25 billion would go a fair way.

OK I can see the argument against. Because we need to hold our heads up in NATO. Because we have committed to be part of the western alliance shield. Because that means paying our way. Well OK that's a good argument if you accept the status quo.

Frankly I would like to see Britain pull out of NATO, strengthen our European political ties and become a driving force behind a European Defence Force on which we can spend a reasonable amount of military budget on areas which we can justify as being within the European sphere of influence - but it's a pipe dream. It will never happen, certainly not under Blair or Brown.

So what are the circumstances in which such expenditure is justified from within our current political and military alliances, forgetting any personal preferences. Do we see this system being used against China maybe? North Korea? I don't really think so. There is precious little evidence that the Chinese see Britain as a front line target for nuclear attack. Russia? Well certainly President Putin is behaving in a very Imperial fashion at present but I don't see the scenario of another nuclear stand-off as in the cold war days. As Ian Hislop dryly pointed out this week on 'Have I got News for you' it appears that the Russians have developed a more subtle way of spreading radiation throughout the United Kingdom. The situations in which we have been militarily involved in recent years would certainly not involve the use of Trident nuclear weapons and it is hard to envisage a scenario where such is likely.

So on what rationale was this decision reached? Tony Blair promised last year that the whole issue would be debated in Parliament before any decision was reached, then hey presto, on Dec 4th Blair announced that the Trident system would be replaced and that the decision had been made. This is not the first time Blair has misled the British people but presumably this decision was made after the recent trip to Washington when the Americans told him that he could consult all he liked but the British would continue to pay their nuclear way, like it or lump it.



The truth is that Britain is so dependent on American good will that we are in an unbreakable noose. British Prime Ministers can waffle on all they like about independent deterrents and free and open debates but we are tied to the American nuclear programme for as long as the Americans want us to be.