UK military chiefs lack confidence in expensive Trident nuclear missiles

Top military chiefs go cold on nuclear deterrent, The Independent, OLIVER WRIGHT , KIM SENGUPTA 26 SEPTEMBER 2012 Senior military commanders have privately questioned whether Britain needs to maintain its current level of nuclear deterrence when the country’s ageing Trident submarines are decommissioned.

Nick Harvey, the former defence minister who until September had
responsibility for the Government’s nuclear capability review, said
officers had expressed reservations to him about both the costs and
the benefits of such a deterrent.

And he warned that Britain’s armed forces are facing a “perfect storm”
of additional costs in the next five years that meant any decision to
replace Trident would force cutbacks in other areas.

Serving military commanders told The Independent that while the
decision on the future of the Trident had to be a political one the
economic imperatives “must lead” to an “evaluation of what is ideal to
have and what is more realistic in the situation we face”.

“There are all kinds of considerations beyond purely military ones,
such as whether not having a nuclear deterrent have any impact on our
seat in the [UN] Security Council,” said one of the most senior
generals in the Army.

The senior general added that in terms of pure defence we must explore
whether the money spent on Trident can’t be spent better elsewhere,
… The Government is due to publish the findings of its own review
into the options for replacing Trident at the start of next year.
Ministers have put the bill for a full scale new system at between
£15bn and £20bn which is due to come out of existing Ministry of
Defence budgets.

In his first public comments on the issue since leaving office Mr
Harvey said senior officers were now beginning to question to wisdom
of the status quo.

“Believe you me there are very senior people within all three services
who are highly aware of the perfect storm of costs that are coming,”
he said.

“They don’t believe that the Treasury is going to ride to their rescue
with a cheque. They are asking the question: do we really want to do
this. Is the opportunity cost of having another generation of nuclear
weapons too high in terms of what it would prevent us doing on other
fronts?”

Mr Harvey said that by 2020 the armed forces would have to find the
money to pay for the joint striker aircraft, a new generation of
unmanned aircraft as well as the Type 26 frigate.

This, he added, was in addition to re-kitting the army which, he said,
had not had a proper programme of new equipment “for about 50 years”.

“All of that will come at the same time as this massive outlay for Trident.

“I believe that the army, the air force and the surface part of the
navy will look at the competing costs facing defence in 2020 and there
will be an open debate as to whether replacing Trident with another
full scale programme of nuclear weapons is an absolute must.”….
Former commanders have been openly questioning the wisdom of Trident
replacement. General Lord Ramsbotham stated: “What is the point in
spending a vast proportion of our defence budget on it when that
portion could be better spent on better equipping our conventional
armed forces and giving them the precision guided weapons that they
need.”

A serving senior officer added: “The imperative is to ensure we have
adequate conventional defences and this should not be sacrificed for
the sake of replacing Trident.” ,….
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/top-military-chiefs-go-cold-on-nuclear-deterrent-8180688.html