Speaking on BBC1's Politics Show the Shadow Defence Secretary appeared to put an end to speculation that replacement of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent could be scrapped under an incoming Conservative government:
Dr Liam Fox would not set out the exact nature of the deterrent, however, avoiding direct questioning on the number of submarines that would be associated with the deterrent. He repeated however that a nuclear deterrent would be necessary to defend Britain from "nuclear blackmail" by states such as North Korea and Iran.
Dr Fox also refused to be drawn on other defence commitments. He said that an incoming Conservative government would have to take account of the "train wrecked" public finances. The Conservatives would, he said, conduct a strategic defence review, define Britain's national interest, the threats we'll face, and then set out the equipment and alliances necessary to meet those threats.
A clash with Britain's defence industry seems highly likely, however. Dr Fox is known to be sympathetic to the Canadian model where that country's armed forces are being renewed by purchasing cheaper, off-the-shelf defence equipment from overseas.
Tim Montgomerie
"The Conservatives would, he said, conduct a strategic defence review, define Britain's national interest, the threats we'll face, and then set out the equipment and alliances necessary to meet those threats."
If we can achieve that aim in a competent and fiscally sound manner, it would be a very good start to mending the broken military covenant.
But its a hell of a tall order right now, and it would have to mean a root and branch restructuring of the MOD. Mr Fox, it would mean a 110% commitment from you, Cameron and Osborne in the Treasury. The smoke and mirrors spin and dishonesty that we saw from Blair, Brown and too many Defence Ministers to mention is not an option. We have got to repair about 20 years of damage, and we have to build a defence mechanism that is fit for purpose in this century.
Efficient and fast supply, providing the right equipment on the ground for our soldiers is absolutely vital for both humanitarian and defence situations. Our soldiers have shown their metal over the last 10years, lets support them by doing our bit as a government to support their efforts in the best way possible. And make sure that the accommodation is fit for use too.
Posted by: ChrisD | May 03, 2009 at 13:05
"Dr Fox is known to be sympathetic to the Canadian model where that country's armed forces are being renewed by purchasing cheaper, off-the-shelf defence equipment from overseas."
Gerald Howarth MP attacked Dan Lewis of the Economic Research Council for expressing that view in a question after his (Freedom Association) Norris McWhirter lecture last week. It seems that the Tory defence team is split on that issue.
Posted by: UKIP member | May 03, 2009 at 13:10
How unfortunate because most people in Scotland don't want Trident, Fox being a Scot should hang his head in shame. Why not dump Trident on the Thames because from what i read the folk in London want it, or is it a case yes we want trident but not in our back yard ?
The sooner Scotland gains independence then the sooner England will have her Nukes but in the mean team i really do want a Conservative victory at the next election, anything, no matter how toffenose or patronising has to be better than a Mad Scot at number 10..
Posted by: Omar Kader | May 03, 2009 at 13:16
"Dr Fox is known to be sympathetic to the Canadian model where that country's armed forces are being renewed by purchasing cheaper, off-the-shelf defence equipment from overseas."
No no no no! Britain has always relied on having a small but extremely well-trained army. Part of that is having our own unique weapons suited to our objectives. "Cheap" and "off-the-shelf" is not what we are, or ever should be.
Posted by: MrB | May 03, 2009 at 13:30
Fox probably won't ever be Defence Sec. It is Cameron that needs to use the same words.
Posted by: Defence Insider | May 03, 2009 at 13:41
This was always the logical decision, although in these tough financial times renewal should be kept to the absolute minimum to be secure until such time as the economy improves.
Posted by: Thatcherite88 | May 03, 2009 at 14:25
Fox is the Thatcherites' best hope.
Posted by: DCMX | May 03, 2009 at 14:36
BBC1 Politics Show has just emailed this transcript:
INTERVIEW WITH: LIAM FOX, MP, Shadow Defence Secretary
"JON SOPEL: Joining us now the Shadow Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. Welcome. Thanks very much for being with us. Do you still think the Armed Forces are under-funded.
LIAM FOX: Well, I think that they are under-funded for what they’re being asked to do at the present time and this is the key question that we have to look at in the Strategic Defence Review. We haven’t had such a Review in this country since 1998. In other words, we’re running our Armed Forces, funding them and preparing them for a tempo of a world that existed in 1998. We have to sit down and decide what it is that Britain needs to be able to do in the sort of threats that we face and fund it accordingly. What we cannot do is asked our Armed Forces to do more with less, which is what’s happening at the present time.
JON SOPEL: But let’s be clear about this, given the spending constraints, the borrowing figures that we are all familiar with as a result of the last budget. There is no way that defence spending is going to increase if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister.
LIAM FOX: Well we will have to take account of the economic train wreck that we would inherit if we come to government next year and that would of course be very difficult. So we have to have a very clear way of going about this; so what we intend to do is to have a Defence Review, which has the following steps – which says that we need to set up what we think are Britain’s national interests and where they exist. What are the threats we’re likely to encounter. What military capabilities do we need to deal with them. What programmes make a reality of those capabilities and then how much can we afford of that. Now that seems a sensible way to do it, rather than simply plucking one programme or another out of the air.
JON SOPEL: But we heard in David Thompson’s report there the fact that the Treasury’s priorities, George Osborne’s priorities are going to be very different from your priorities. Is it right that you have been mailing defence chiefs about defence contractors, saying you’re going to fight George Osborne’s plans to cut the A400M transport aircraft.
LIAM FOX: Well, I don’t think that George Osborne has focused very much on any individual defence programme, nor have I have mailed anyone to … (interjection) …
JON SOPEL: You haven’t emailed anyone to discuss those proposals?
LIAM FOX: Oh, to discuss – I’ve discussed lots of things with lots of people, including some people who, no doubt if you asked them would say that we hadn’t. We … have to have these discussions. Now, there are two complications about reviewing programmes in opposition on defence. One is that not all the numbers are available. I understand that. A lot of them, for reasons of commercial confidentiality or national security, are kept from us. So it’s very difficult for us to make assessments about individual programmes. And we also, as I say, intend to have a wider review, which is not just about defence capabilities, it’s about foreign policies, it’s about Britain’s ability to influence events in the world, given that we’ve got a seat on the Security Council, for example, we have to retain certain capabilities to make a reality of that.
JON SOPEL: How can you say to voters, vote for us on defence because we’ll have a defence review and then we’ll tell you at the end of it what we’re going to do. Don’t you need to be little clearer.
LIAM FOX: Well we set out, for example, let me give you one – the nuclear deterrent this week. David Cameron has made it very clear things have not changed. We are in favour of the replacement of the nuclear deterrent, we voted for it in parliament, but like all other projects that we have, we’ll have to review them for value for money for the tax payer, but it’s very clear that on very big projects like that, where there’s a unique defence capability, that it’s the Conservatives, as has always been the case, will stand behind that project and Britain’s power projection abroad.
JON SOPEL: Sorry, you say that David Cameron has been very clear in supporting Trident, the quote doesn’t seem to be that clear to me I’ve got to say. ‘We support things that are in the forward defence programme because we think there is a good justification for all of them. But that doesn’t mean in these difficult circumstances, you don’t have to look… when you are reviewing spending, you have to review all spending’. That says, this is under review whether you go ahead with the replacement for Trident.
LIAM FOX: Yes. But if you look at the first half of his answer, which said nothing has changed. We are committed to the nuclear deterrent, and clearly in a world, when you’ve got countries like North Korea and Iran, potentially developing nuclear weapons, it is prudent and sensible to give Britain the guarantee against nuclear blackmail for what would be to 2040, ’50 and beyond.
JON SOPEL: So you can guarantee Trident goes ahead.
LIAM FOX: There will be a replacement for our current Trident system, under the Conservatives.
JON SOPEL: Yes. With the same number of submarines?
LIAM FOX: Well, whether we have three or four, is something that will be dependent on the technology … we’re talking a few years ahead. If you look at some of the elements within that, the current estimates of two to three billion for the infrastructure required, we’ll have to look at all of those projects to see whether we get value for money for the taxpayer, but what is very clear, and what David Cameron has made very clear is there will be a replacement to Trident; the country requires it in terms of its defence.
JON SOPEL: But there are a variety of senior Tory voices beginning to question whether it is a sensible thing to be doing. James Arbuthnot, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, etc.
LIAM FOX: Yeah. I’m sure there will be lots of people who will be engaged in the debate and I’m always very happy to listen to the views of my colleagues but David Cameron has made it very clear and we voted in the House of Commons that that is the policy that we will have. Now, like every project in government, given the economic disaster, the near bankruptcy of the country that is happening under Labour, we will have to look very hard within those projects at value for money, but we will be absolutely insistent on retaining the capabilities that Britain requires to keep it safe. Because defence of the realm is the number one duty of government.
JON SOPEL: Given that, what do you think about 50p tax rate. You’re a tax cutter by instinct, everyone knows that. Do you think that it’s right the Tories say we’re going to accept this when people keep on saying, it’s going to be bad for the economy. I’ve heard George Osborne and David Cameron say it’s bad for the economy – if it’s bad, reverse it.
LIAM FOX: Well it’s absolutely horrible that taxes are going up, but they’re going up because of the government’s economic catastrophe. It may well be that the tax rises have to be reversed in a queue and the most important one is getting the National Insurance increase down because that affects the vast majority of people in the country; so in terms of our ability to reduce taxes, that may take us some time.
JON SOPEL: Very briefly, do you believe that Gordon Brown will be leading Labour in to the next election.
LIAM FOX: I don’t know. I’m not a betting man but if I were a betting man, I might be tempted to have a flutter that he won’t, given the in-fighting that’s going on at the present time, where the government seem to have forgotten there’s a recession, which will make people angry and when you get people like Hazel Blear, who would normally, you know defend an inanimate object, if it had a Labour label on it, when she’s giving the Prime Minister a kicking this morning, you can bet your bottom dollar things are going to go from bad to worse.
JON SOPEL: Liam Fox. Thank you very much for being with us. Thank you.
LIAM FOX: Thank you."
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | May 03, 2009 at 14:42
Trident is our insurance policy.
£20bn for 30 yrs,to protect a £1500bn yr GDP,
Even if the lefties are right,it will be closer to £70bn,its still value for money.
The aircraft carriers the same £3bn each,to protect £380bn yr of exports,of course a lot of which is services,but if you look at the exports monthly from the UK,£32-33bn,£19-20bn,or the largest part,is still manufactured goods.
pirates anyone!
The European Commision contribution figures from 1973-2005.
UK- £278BN
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND £0.
Not picking on the Irish,we are however being shafted by the EU.
And while we are on how much money goes out of the country,stop giving a billion to India,and aid to China,afterall they own something called US-T-BILLS,only a mere $2 trillion,
WHAT A JOKE!
Posted by: Richard | May 03, 2009 at 14:50
Good comment Richard. I've put it on the homepage.
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | May 03, 2009 at 14:54
"Fox appears to say that Trident will be safe under a Conservative government"
Appears?
Appears to say?
He seemed pretty damn clear to me. But then again so did cameron, but that didn't stop you from making a story out of it.
Posted by: Thomas | May 03, 2009 at 15:08
Then where`s the money coming from? That`s the question. We do not need Trident and cannot afford. To think that Iran or North Korea would blackmail us with a nuclear strike is nonsense.If they did that the US would simply threaten them with a nuclear strike.
We need to realise we are a small country off the coast of Europe not one that as an empire and rules most of the globe and have a defence that suits us for what we are as a nation now not what we were fifty odd years ago.
Posted by: Jack Stone | May 03, 2009 at 15:21
David Cameron has made very clear is there will be a replacement to Trident; the country requires it in terms of its defence.
'A replacement to Trident' doesnt say what!
Posted by: david1 | May 03, 2009 at 15:22
"Dr Fox is known to be sympathetic to the Canadian model". There is no such thing as 'the Canadian model'. Canada doesn't have an indigenous defence manufacturing industry to speak of - and doesn't buy, beyond a handful fighters, big ticket projects anyway - hence Ottawa doesn't have the choice to 'buy Canadian'. We do have the option of buying British and should. The people urging us to subordinate our procurement policy to American interests are being as characteristically dim-witted as when they urged us to be lickspittles to Clinton & Dubya's foreign policies. And oddly enough, they're always the *same* idiots. It almost makes one wonder . . .
Posted by: ACT | May 03, 2009 at 15:36
Jack Stone,
If we can't afford trident,we can't afford the BBC,cost £3bn a yr and rising.
Yes or No?
Jack,cost of NHS over-spending on the IT scheme for NHS,the overspend alone,£10bn(and counting),OH! & Jack,it still dosn't work.
So Jack £10bn,would buy half the trident cover for 15 yrs,or pay for the super-carriers.
Hand your head in shame,you left wing twit!
W.S.Churchill.
If you are not a Liberal in your 20's,you have no heart.
If you are a Liberal in yor 30's you have no brain.
Posted by: Richard | May 03, 2009 at 15:37
Tim,
you are welcome Sir.
Posted by: Richard | May 03, 2009 at 15:43
Sensible comments from Liam Fox. We should retain our independent nuclear deterrent but that doesn't mean the false choice of "It's Trident or nothing." Conduct a full and proper SDR that identifies what the likely threats are and what is the most appropriate deterrent for them. It that suggests that the most appropriate deterrent is another SLBM system like Trident then that's well and good, but don't allow a repeat of what happened under Healey in 1966, when the Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carriers and the RAF's TSR.2 strike aircraft were both sacrificed on the altar of Polaris.
Posted by: The Watcher | May 03, 2009 at 15:43
Way hay! Mr Stone is back!
Yes we can afford Trident, There should be no compromise on our national security and military strength. I'm in favour of looking at reinvesting in the military that has been called on so many times over the century to defend our interests against an aggressive and unpredictable world.
The left wing nuts likes Mr Stone and the despicable party he represents have abused the armed forces. Labour broke the covenant as they stripped and whored our armed forces out. Not surprising though, as that's what lefties are about, destroying, abusing and attacking that they do no agree with, using people and then disposing people to prove points, it's a sickening side to their whole ideological path.
As a nation we never know what the future holds and what new threats will come out this world of ours, The deterrence of Trident, the building of the new carriers and destroyers, the planes, the tanks and subs, and most importantly investing and looking after our fighting men and women is good for us, them and the national pride in how we can try and make this world a better place and protect us from those that wish us hard. All things Labour has damaged from their incompetence and nature of spite.
Labour has no respect for anything or anyone, it's all about forcing their skewed vitriolic socialist ideals on the country and the people. Labour won by swinging to the right, their return to the hard left under an unwanted and loathed Brown shall see them decimated.
Posted by: YMT | May 03, 2009 at 16:05
Canada's attempts of defence independence were not very successful.
In June 1957, the governing Liberals lost the federal election, and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what they claimed was "rampant Liberal spending." The debate was politically presented as an east versus west divide, with the Conservatives campaigning on a platform of eastern Canada using money from across the country to fund their "industrial welfare" projects. The Arrow was not the only major industrial project targeted during the campaign, others such as the "million dollar monster" postal sorting computer from Ferranti Canada were singled out for additional political scorn.
In August 1957, the Diefenbaker government signed the NORAD (North American Air Defense[5]) Agreement with the United States, which required the subordination of the RCAF Air Defence Command to American command and control[citation needed]. The USAF was in the process of completely automating their air defense system with the SAGE project, and insisted that the RCAF had to use it as well. One aspect of the SAGE system was the BOMARC nuclear-tipped anti-aircraft missile, which when intercepting bombers over Ontario and Quebec would be exploding over major Canadian cities. This led to studies on basing BOMARCs in Canada in order to push the line further north, away from the cities.
Storms of Controversy revealed a top secret brief prepared for George Pearkes, then Minister of National Defence, for his July 1958 meeting with U.S. officials. The brief states,
"The introduction of SAGE in Canada will cost in the neighborhood of $107 million. Further improvements are required in the radar… NORAD has also recommended the introduction of the BOMARC missile… will be a further commitment of $164 million… All these commitments coming at this particular time… will tend to increase our defence budget by as much as 25 to 30%…"
Pearkes was also concerned about funding defence against ballistic missiles. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a "missile gap" began spreading. An American brief of the meeting with Pearkes reported Pearkes "stated that the problem of developing a defence against missiles while at the same time completing and rounding out defence measures against manned bombers posed a serious problem for Canada from the point of view of expense…"[6] In a document written after the cancellation, Pearkes noted, "We did not cancel the CF-105 because there was no bomber threat, but because there was a lesser threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this"[7] It is also said Canada could afford the Arrow or Bomarc/SAGE, but not both
From wiki.
Posted by: david1 | May 03, 2009 at 16:18
YMT,here,here!
The EU Commission have not,& will not reform the CAP,Sarkozy will refuse.
No reform of CAP,we will have our rebate back.
That will give us approx £27bn over the next 10 years,thats Trident payed for then.
Jack,thats the difference we need a Government who stick up for the country,who they are supposed to represent.
Posted by: Richard | May 03, 2009 at 16:24
Part of that is having our own unique weapons suited to our objectives.
What, like the SA80?
The fact is, for anyone not totally blinkered by patriotism, that the UK defence industry has a very mixed record. Some stuff has in the past, been world-class (eg the Centurion and Chieftain tanks). Some, to put it bluntly, hasn't.
You have to ask: what is the defence budget for? Is it to provide the best equipment for the best soldiers, sailors, and airmen? Or is to prop up an industry which shows little concern for anything other than its own profits, and which apparently can't survive on the world stage without not-so-hidden subsidy?
Posted by: Alex Swanson | May 03, 2009 at 17:35
"that doesn't mean the false choice of "It's Trident or nothing.""
I'm afraid that's exaclt what it means.
We have a choice of an expenise, but already paid for good system. Or a aslightly less expensive, but not cheap, inadequate system that has to be designed and built from scratch.
Why will the armchair generals ever just accept that they do not know better than everyone else?
As I keep pointing out, nothing other than a submarine launched ICBM system is even being considered by anybody. Conservative home and the guardian have been involved in a bit of mischief-making over the past few days, but anybody who knows anything about defence knows that their story was BS.
Posted by: Thomas | May 03, 2009 at 17:45
I think that Conservative defense ministers need to have a frank & candid chat with the top brass of the armed forces about this issue after the next general election. There is no need for specific statements now as we need to hear what the experts think about this first hand rather than the generalizations of a few retired arm-chair officers.
It needs careful weighing up as on the one hand Trident will not stop terror attacks & spending & the budget deficit need curbing while the armed forces are too small, their accommodation is poor and the kit not up too scratch. On the other hand to avoid being black-mailed by rogue states possibly Trident may have its uses & building it could help job creation during a period of higher unemployment.
On this issue I am uncertain & would like more solid information. I wonder since Dr Fox wants Trident & David Davis is a bit cool on this and the Tory leadership seems hesitant whether Dr Fox might be sacked and David Davis named Shadow Defense Secretary with a brief to rewrite Tory policy on this issue. A divided shadow defense team is no good when it concerns a major issue at a time of national peril. The Cameroons do not like Fox & the return of Davis would signal a united party. I am undecided on Trident and care about the issues involved. Also I trust & respect our nations military top brass and would value their expert views on the wisdom or otherwise of replacing Trident.
Might the Trident issue not serve a purpose here as far as the fate of Dr Fox as Shadow Defense Secretary is concerned ?
Posted by: Matthew Reynolds | May 03, 2009 at 19:05
Scrap it.
Posted by: Andrew Bradley | May 03, 2009 at 19:24
Thomas believe me there are plenty of defence experts on the internet who would disagree entirely with what you say. It's not just "armchair generals." All weapons system are expensive, but SSBN's and their missiles require extensive supporting infrastructure that have a particularly large price tag. We need a deterrent system that is suited to the UK's defence requirements. In all likelihood we are only ever going to be facing a nuclear exchange with an emergent nuclear power such as Iran or very possibly Russia. Trident is an excellent system, the best of it's kind ever built, but for threats like Iran it is probably overkill.
Posted by: The Watcher | May 03, 2009 at 19:42
I am rather uncomfortable about recent events concerning the Conservative Party and defence. We need to be much clearer about our intentions and be open and honest with the public.
Of course a defence review is necessary but I would hope that Fox and Cameron will reveal their own thoughts far in advance of the general election.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | May 03, 2009 at 19:49
I second Malcolm Dunn.
I support a review but Liam Fox & David Cameron should be able to tell us much more about their overall vision for defence capacity.
Posted by: Dan Beckham | May 03, 2009 at 19:56
Liam Fox has not impressed me as Shadow Defence Secretary.
I do not have all the answers to this, as my interests are domestic policy.
But we do need some fresh thinking on Defence, and whereas we must have a nuclear program, we should find a cheaper and more suitable one than Trident or a direct successor.
I don't think Dr Fox is capable of providing that fresh approach, and I would advise David Cameron to appoint someone else to the real job.
Posted by: Joe James B | May 03, 2009 at 23:13
"You have to ask: what is the defence budget for? Is it to provide the best equipment for the best soldiers, sailors, and airmen? Or is to prop up an industry which shows little concern for anything other than its own profits, and which apparently can't survive on the world stage without not-so-hidden subsidy?"
Alex that is the best point so far. The Defence Industry has been running on Corporate Socialism for too long, beven under the days of Margaret Thatcher. No one questions MOD budgets because it is the MOD. We have learnt that large MOD budgets do not work. They leave our soldiers with shoddy overpriced equipment and the UK unable to meet its commitment in just two minor wars.
The air of competition needs to be blown towards the MOD. Better use of budgets. Scrapping of unnecessary programmes and properly arming our troops.
Trident is affordable, but let us keep the costs down.
There is the army covenant and a budget deficit to pay for. That should always be kept in mind.
Posted by: TheBigotBasher | May 04, 2009 at 00:39
"I wonder since Dr Fox wants Trident & David Davis is a bit cool on this and the Tory leadership seems hesitant whether Dr Fox might be sacked and David Davis named Shadow Defense Secretary with a brief to rewrite Tory policy on this issue."
David Davis has not set out his position on Trident. What DD has done is list a number of things, trident being one of them, that should be reviewed. David Cameron has repeatedly said that Trident is safe as has Osborne, the only thing that would suggest otherwise was David Cameron saying "We are committed to renwing Trident BUT it will ofcourse be reviewed"
"A divided shadow defense team is no good when it concerns a major issue at a time of national peril."
So David Cameron should get rid of the fiercely loyal(thats what he is, people may not agree with fox, they may not like him, but he has been a good little boy at times when others, including Osborne, Davis etc have been very naughty) Liam Fox, who he agrees with on matters of defence, and replace him with a loose cannon, with whom he disagrees.
"The Cameroons do not like Fox & the return of Davis would signal a united party."
I really think that you are wrong. The cameroons love Liam Fox. They love him because he represents the right-wing of the conservative party but is very loyal and very quiet.
As much as I like DD, he will never return because he doesn't like David Cameron and David Cameron doesn't like him. I would love to see DD back in the shadow cabinet, but it isn't going to happen and its probably a good thing that it wont.
"Thomas believe me there are plenty of defence experts on the internet who would disagree entirely with what you say."
Can you name one? Retired christian generals who have a moral objection to nuclear weapons do not count. Nor do people who would have something to gain from changing the system. So that rules out anybody from the army or the RAF.
"In all likelihood we are only ever going to be facing a nuclear exchange with an emergent nuclear power such as Iran or very possibly Russia."
A cruise missile could not hit Tehran from the Iranian coast.
A cruise missile could not hit moscow from the russian border.
So it seems that in either case cruise missiles are useless.
Posted by: Thomas | May 04, 2009 at 07:46
"I support a review but Liam Fox & David Cameron should be able to tell us much more about their overall vision for defence capacity."
David Cameron has done, he says there will be a review, but that he supports maintaining the current system. I'm not sure why this isn't clear.
"Liam Fox has not impressed me as Shadow Defence Secretary.
I do not have all the answers to this, as my interests are domestic policy.
"whereas we must have a nuclear program, we should find a cheaper and more suitable one than Trident or a direct successor."
Trident is the only suitable nuclear detterent as cruise missiles do not have the range to hit any of our possible targets and their yield is far too low, we may aswell have non-nuclear cruise missiles as they have comparable yield to the weak fission devices found in the old american nuclear tipped cruise missiles, you know, the ones that they retired because it was decidied they were useless.
"I don't think Dr Fox is capable of providing that fresh approach, and I would advise David Cameron to appoint someone else to the real job."
As you already pointed out, you know nothing about defence. Thats why you can be forgiven for not realising that Fox has been working tirelessly for the past 4 years building bridges in the defence establishment. Fox wont be replaced, he is far too useful (and quiet) where he is.
Posted by: Thomas | May 04, 2009 at 07:54
Trident is at the end of a long list of things we cannot afford and do not need. ID Cards. The NHS database. The surveillance state and the psychotic mechanism to spy on everyone. Someone should tell our political elite that Britain is not East Germany. Even east Germany isn't East Germany any more. We have to tighten our belts. We are entering a ten year Depression and the British public will not tolerate our money being squandered. You have been warned. You shall not be warned again.
Posted by: Stephen | May 04, 2009 at 18:15
The Money earmarked for Trident would better either go in sorting out the National debt or be better spent on British Ordinances, it that simple. D.C. knows he will have the support of the vast numbers of sane people, if he puts British Jobs first. The ID , card has to go along with the DNA stealing paranoid of the creeping creepy Labour state. We have to decide if we are ready as a nation to take on a lesser role in the affairs of the world and quietly resign to our fate as a vassal of German/Rome.
Trident might be a nice luxury weapon, which may inspire confidence, but its warheads can be delivered in a number of ways. At one time the Bomber was believed
to be the ultimate weapon, as it would “always get through” in sufficient numbers. It is certainly able to deliver death to Ira-n should she push us by an act of aggression.
I hope that sensible minds will realise that Trident is just a rather shiny sword not that practicable, mostly for display. We need to find savings, but we will also need to keep up spending on defence. If we had to deliver a bomb to the Falklands today would we succeed, I should hope so. Vulcan cost an arm and a leg but was used only once in deadly earnest. Trident is a weapon we cannot afford to buy and which we cannot afford to own and which we would most likely never use. I think there are more practicable things to spend our nations hard earned monies on.
Posted by: Ross Warren | May 23, 2009 at 18:26
I believe we should have a nuclear deterrent, but replacing the Trident System does not mean another Trident. Nor should it. We need to make sure the deterrent is affordable and suitable for our needs.
Not note does Fox, quite rightly give a timescale.
We do not need to rush into a replacement. For those who say we would not use our deterrent - well if it works properly thats the point. And if its structured properly it can do its job at reasonable cost.
We have a priority. They are our troops fighting on the ground and the helicopters drones and transport aircraft needed to support it.
Posted by: TrevorH | June 06, 2009 at 00:13