To argue that Trident is about jobs is to conceed the main issue without a debate

Here we go again.

Last time it was ship building and the white elephant carriers to be assembled in Rosyth as an economic bribe to keep Scotland in the Union.

Today's its the jobs at Faslane.

Do any of those trying to use the impending economic disruption of ending the location of the UK's nuclear deterrent on the Clyde not see that its the principled argument that needs to be won first, not an argument over supposed economic benefits of seeing defence as a government jobs creation scheme ?

Will no one make the case for:

1) A UK independent nuclear deterrent; and
2) That it should be Trident ?

Because if they don't the argument is already lost by the clowns lead by Cameron.

Labour can be in NATO and have Nuclear weopons or surrender with Corbyn and its time to decide

Well that's done it. I don't think the media has fully realise what Jeremy Corbyn has just done - because I haven't heard it from any of the commentators yet.

Here's the thing the UK holds nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Nuclear attack or Nuclear black mail by other states or actors.

That deterrent only works if your enemies think you'll use it.

Its quite clear that if the phone rang and the chief of the defence staff phoned Prime Minister Corby to say a nation had launched a massive nuclear attack against the UK that Mr Corbyn wouldn't authorise a reprisal. ( Or at least the attacker could reasonably expect this ).

That means Trident is useless if Corbuyn is PM - regardless of if you renew it or keep it. The Labour party can pretend otherwise and I'm sure some of the cowardly New Labour types will try to do this.

Also ... NATO is a Nuclear Alliance. France and the United States back every other member with their Nuclear weapons - as currently does the UK. If a Corbyn administration won't use the UK's few where the morality on relying on the US to use theirs and trade US Cities defending UK cities ? Are US Trident submarines more moral than UK ones ?

Clearly Corbyn can't stay in NATO.

There are plenty of people in Labour who said they were committed to NATO and the UK's nuclear deterrent. There is almost no more important policy.

Those people must now either depose Corbyn or leave Labour, and if they want to avoid looking like Claire Short then they don't have much time to decide in.

The false dawn of Nick Clegg

I've just finished watching the various post debate TV shows and I have to agree with the headline consensus - Nick Clegg put on a good performance.

He was able to play his clearly planned attempts to make the audience his friend trick, and of course variations on the plague on both your houses traditional Lib Dem ploy.

Nick Clegg is clearly more of the used car salesman than either of the other two party leaders, and its clear he won the battle of style.

However, as always with the Lib Dems, the Achilles heal is substance.

Nick Clegg deployed the Lib Dems plans to sacrifice defence of the UK and its independent status by surrendering a capable nuclear deterrent. ( Though the adding St Petersberg to Moscow on the British Nuclear doctrine is a nice tough, but a clearly pre-scripted one that all Lib Dem spokespeople have been using for a few days. ) Lib Dems not - having nuclear weapons and a sufficient deterent aren't the same thing.

Lib Dems will moan that they aren't unilateralists - but I have yet to hear an alternative that meets the requirements of Trident which are to ensure your enemies of their inevitable nuclear destruction if they attack the UK with nuclear weapons. ( You can stop banging on about Astute class submarines with cruise missiles Lib Dems because by the time you create the necessary capability it will cost more not less. )

The Lib Dems are also very dishonest about the profile of the costs for a Trident replacement - which will be a small part of the defence budget over many years. - citing the overall cost as they do is very misleading (and you have to assume that they are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes on this as its so blatant). If you think we need to cut back on defence then the obvious candidates are the RAF and the new carriers, but none come without consequence.

Lib Dems should remember that nuclear capable supersonic bombers come to the edge of UK airspace on a regular basis even now.

And then there's the deficit. Nick Clegg made some welcome noises about the full impact of Labour's financial road crash and debt disaster not being recognised by this campaign. However they then went on to shower spending pledges and give tax bribes without focus ( unlike the Conservatives NI ideas which are very focuses on jobs and growing the economy ).

The hope for the Lib Dems is that they won't get much scrutiny on their polices or the fact that in much of the country they try to run as a proxy Labour party. Here in Woking the Lib Dems are the ones who campaign for more spending all the time - though being the Lib Dems it doesn't stop them trying to claim they would tax less.

The question is will there be time and sufficient attention to get to the bottom of these issues, or will the superficial Lib Dem positions survive through lack of scrutiny ?

This should prove to be a false dawn for Nick Clegg, caused by his luck on being able to deploy short sound-bites without consequence. However it will make it harder for the Lib Dems to replace him after the general election, and that may be the lasting legacy.

What will the UKs response to a missile attack be ?

Now that the US is giving up on defending Europe from missile attacks ( and to some degree why should they ), I'm wondering what our governments planned response to an ICBM launch from Tehran towards London or our military bases in Cyprus would be.

Almost certainly it would be a wait and see approach.

Wait for the missile to reach the ground, and
see if they've managed to miniaturise nuclear war heads or not.

And if a mushroom cloud did rise over London ? Then what. With Trident looking like its for the chop would be get really cross at the UN ?

Time to consider the day that we might be left on our own I think.

Update: In some ways I think this is a start of a wider US pull back as the cost of the overseas US military become unsustainable.

If Scotland's not intrested in self defence then ....

Given the vote in the Scottish parliament today Trident should be based out of England and the future carriers should be manufactured in England.

The Scottish regiment should be cut to a pro-rata equivalent size as the English regiments for the population size.

England should remain free and be adequately defended. Scotland will just have to pull up the white flag whilst everyone else who has the will to defend themselves decides their future - and hope the English are generous, as we normally are.

Whats the point of Trident ?

Well at least one of them.

Context - President Putin threatens Europe with being targeted by Russian nuclear missiles if it allows the US to site ABM interceptors to prevent Iranian missile attacks on Europe and the US.

It is interesting and alarming to see the old KGB developing a strangle hold on Russia and start to define the country in terms of its anti-western stance. How long before Communism comes back?

But its does rather answer the question "What is the point of Trident". Gordon Brown should be grateful.

Photo of RAF Tornado F3 intercepting Russian spy planes over a Royal Navy exercise in international waters recently. Cold war anyone ?

Update: See the post by Greg Hands MP over on Conservative home also..

Trident vote - what for ?

So Blair has won his Trident vote. I can hear newsnight in the background with Kirsty (I'm a real leftie) Wark leading up.

Some of the Labour MP's wanted to delay a decision - they have local parties to appease.

I'd assumed that Blair wanted the vote out of the way before Brown got in. However one of the few clear commitment Brown has given is to Trident.

So why have a vote now ? Given that in the future there will be less Labour MPs - its hardly going to get more difficult is it ?

Well perhaps you know something is coming that would make this vote very had to win afterwards ....

Des Browne countering CND on More 4

Just watched some of the Trident debate on More 4#s new program and I have to admit I'm very impressed by Des Browne's ( UK Minister of defence ) performance.

He was clear, logical, and persuasive on the case for renewing Trident.


I wasn't impressed by him when he took over his post- and said so in this blog - but tonight his performance was very impressive, and perhaps I have misjudged him. He dispatched his opponents and, most importantly, communicated and explained his case in terms that people can understand.

I've hinted before that we have a whole younger generation that has grown up relatively carefree - with out the dread of the 3 minute warning. Now that threat may be coming back we may find our younger citizens are a bit shell shocked.

What about global poverty and global warming is their near brain washed response ... .. I'm sorry we kept the real nature of the world away from you for 10-15 years, but there really are terrible things to be faced up to (not just concerts in the park and Al Gore films).

Personally every so often I still have nightmares about nuclear war. I'm not convinced that Trident is the best system, but I am convinced that we need to maintain a credible strategic nuclear deterrent.

PS The Conservative junior shadow minister had far greater trouble making his case - in a way that communicates to the audience. Dr Fox should have been there.