John Hutton seems to be making a comeback these days, after leaving his position as Defence Secretary for 'family reasons' and announcing he was standing down at the next election. He has started speaking at private dinners for the law firm Eversheds, but turned down a post with EDF Energy, the British arm of the French state-controlled nuclear energy company.
He has warned Gordon Brown that it would be "daft" to scrap the Trident Nuclear weapons system and predicted that his plans to scale it back will not save much money.
Mr Brown has announced his intention to reduce the number of submarines from four to three. Some senior Labour figures are urging him to go further by scrapping plans to modernise what critics describe as a 'Cold War relic', with the savings divided between cutting the national debt and higher spending on equipment for frontline troops.
Mr Hutton is "not convinced" by Mr Brown's proposal to cut the number of submarines, saying that four subs are needed to ensure that one boat always remains at sea. Instead he believes Britain should offer to reduce the number of warheads at global disarmament talks next spring.
Mr Hutton's stance was influenced partly by his being MP for Barrow-in-Furnace, where the new Trident submarines would be built. He said Britain should not relegate itself from the "premier league" in defence engineering, as once skills were lost they would never come back.
It will be interesting to see if Gordon Brown listens, he doesn't listen when the people of Scotland say they don't want nuclear weapons in their country.
Source: The Independent
Posts
23 comments:
It's certainly true about three submarines leaving the country with virtually no deterrrent.
It was the same senitents expressed by King and the navy when it was first being planned.
http://www.byrnetofferings.co.uk/2009/09/three-trident-submarines-are-we-left.html
SR,
TB above is talking out his arse, the deterrent remains the same with 3 subs, only 1 on patrol with a full compliment of men and officers (no ladies - unborn foetus white paper) and full suite of warheads.
The reduction in boats leaves little flex in maintenance, docking and training routines, but is achievable.
The only new arguement would be where does the UK Government berth the decommissioned nuclear sub?
Any guesses? Yep, Alba! Scotland must not allow this to happen under any circumstances - Westmidden will railroad it through.
Another case for Independence.
Saor Alba
Crazy Daisy
Ah Tom, I see CD has flattened your argument. As he's right at the sharp end I have no problem believing every word he says in this matter.
Maybe you could take CD's comment and do another post on the back of it? You certainly wouldn't be wrong.
Morning CD, still seas here today although kind of dreich with it.
I've just had my post delivered, have you?
I'll agree wih CD's comments, having three would mean there will still be a constant patrol, issues may arise when major re-fits are due or if there's any serious engineering failures etc. I would think that maybe time on patrols might be extended but saying we'd have virtually no deterrent is clearly wrong although I do say scrap them all.
ex-Polaris submariner
Forgot to say SR, I'm informed that postal delivery staff are on strike tomorrow, it's the main sorting offices that are out today. I got post as well
Scotland does not want nuclear weapons!
Is that the view of the majority of Scots? Or just those who pontificate?
It reminds me of the old Greater London Council under Red Ken who declared that London was a Nuclear Free Zone and had signs proclaiming this all over the metropolis.
Would that have stopped nuclear weapons being dropped on London? Of course not neither would a Nuclear Free Scotland.
I am afraid that amongst the first to suffer would be Aberdeen and the gas/oil industry.
I am absolutely sure that Plymouth or Portsmouth would welcome the opportunity to be home for the nuclear submarines and also take back all the shipbuilding/submarine building that has been given to scottish yards.
You cannot have it both ways. You would expect to be defended by the hated English, as ever, but do not wish to participate!
That said I do find your blog entertaining
Hi Dougie, Aye CD and yourself have the first hand knowledge about the hardware.
You're right too, the letters sorted up until early this morning are being delivered today but tomorrow it's the posties turn.
Yes strapworld, that's the view of the majority of the Scots.
http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/20070614450/press-releases/trident/scottish-parliament-votes-overwhelminly-against-trident-replacement.html
Yes it's obviously the goldmine here in Scotland will be the first thing to be hit, but of course London considers that theirs and nothing to do with Scotland other than geographically.
I have no doubt Plymouth or Portsmouth would welcome nuclear subs.
Please don't say 'you expect to be defended by the English etc' - that I find most offensive.
Scots take more than their fair share in protecting these islands and without Scots in the British military, it would be a poor setup.
That said, I enjoy your arguments.
'No senior officer in the Navy considers it possible to maintain the nuclear deterrent without four submarines'
Evidence rather than rhetoric thanks.
Here's my overall view on Trident
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/08/thomas-bynre-there-is-no-alternative-to-trident.html
Tom, you know why that quote is rubbish? Because CD is one of those senior officers and knows what he's talking about.
Oh Tom, thanks for that. You're just a bairn but a good looking one right enough. :) A good idea may be for you to converse with CD, after all he's had plenty years' service and still at it.
He would give you the Navy's view.
So senior officers in the Navy aren't capable of spouting rhetoric? I spent 11 years with Navy officers and beg to differ, and, just because the establishment says something doesn't make it true, and, I'm speaking from experience, it isn't rhetoric, what qualifies you to talk about the nuclear deterrent?
Anyone's capable of spouting rhetoric Dougie, even you and me.
I've spent many years with the three services too and like always, I've judged a person's character as we all do.
Are you speaking to me asking what qualifies me to talk about the nuclear deterrent? I don't think I have because I don't have the slightest knowledge of the technicalities.
No SR I was asking Tom
I thought so Dougie.
I have to say I question the entire theory of nuclear deterrence anyway especially for a (sorry) small country. Before you could use your deterrence, the UK would have been blown to nuclear ash anyway.
All having a nuclear deterrence does is give your politicians a supposed right to play with the big boys no matter what the cost to the people. Having been an empire, some people pretend it is still an empire for which these days you need WMD.
And by the way, if you are a UNITED Kingdom, how would having them in Portsmouth (if it has a deep enough harbor) involve being defended by the "English". Aren't you folks supposed to be United?
The English can't seem to make up their minds. It's being put-upon when it's something they don't want but 'we're all in it together' when it's something the do want like that oil and gas.
Funny that.
Just a few American thoughts some of which I fear you won't care for much.
SR,
Of course "Senior Officers" will spout rhetoric, they want to keep all their toys, whether they're needed or not!
My point is there is no degradation in ability to deploy; and if Scotland doesn't want nuclear weapons based upon her soil, that's her business.
While I'm at it, militarily, I don't agree with the SNP's position with "leasing" anything back to the UK post Independence, once we're out, we're out.
Saor Alba,
CD
p.s.
No post here as I'm in Singapore! Met the Deputy Prime Minister 2 days ago - we had a little talk on the benefits of Scotland gaining Independence.
Singapore is about to reach her 50th Anniversary shortly, an island nation of 4 million people, the size of the Isle of Wight and doing very well thank you.
If they can do it so can we, there's nothing to be afraid of and everything to gain.
Let's face it we've been mismanaged for decades, lied and cheated too, time to be up stood and gain some self belief.
33 degs humid and sunny, home tomorrow!
CD
Jeanne, I question the theory of nuclear deterrents full stop. It doesn't matter if it's a large or small country, except of course, from the angle of the size.
You're right, we'd be blown to smithereens within seconds being a series of small islands.
Nuclear is a big boy's toy and they've made themselves some cosy wee clubs to all sit round and have a luxurious time at our expense.
Aye it's funny how some in England change at times. Never used to happen before oil, so I presume it's the income from that which makes the few so undecided.
Ahoy CD, I agree with you about once we're out we're out. Just can't see the reasoning behind the SNP policy of renting the space to any other country.
Did you set the DPM straight on a few matters and ask his help with our efforts at gaining independence? Do hope so, every brain counts. :)
Safe journey home.
Post a Comment