Trident, Afghanistan, Labour’s Defence Review

I agree that Labour should begin our own Defence Review. If that occurs heaven forfend that its assumptions are those most common among Labour “activists.” Saddam would be threatening us with his renewed WMD programmes if the average labour member could have his/her wish granted, even in retrospect.

Trident makes no sense, probably never did. But the real threats need assessing before that is asserted by The Party. I hope that Eric has his place in the review, and Lord Toby Harris too, for he has a keen interest in cyber security.

When Afghanistan is considered with the 304 British lives lost, let us recall the 170 or so over the Falklands, the 52 in London in the Al Queda attacks, the 2,500 in the Twin Towers attacks, those in Mumbai and Madrid and the facts that many other attacks have been circumvented since we put pressure on the Afghan – Pakistan border.

There is no sign that the Islamo-fascist plotters have moved to Indonesia, for example, which is a far more muslim populous country than any in the ME, So far as Britain’s interests are concerned we are winning the war in the ME.

Clearly we should be putting pressure on Israel , and calling on the USA to cut out its military aid ($3Bn pa) while seeking to help to guarantee a two state solution.

That would go a long way towards cutting the recruiting sergeant for Islamo-fascism in the ME and elsewhere.

It won’t stop the problem though.

We have to face terrorism, and expect battles of various sorts over scarce resources, which may include water, energy, and raw materials. Labour’s Review may well take several years.

[...] of Questions to Which the Answer is No is asked by James Kirkup at the Telegraph, on the basis of a blog by Eric Joyce, the thoughtful Labour MP. I may be conflating ought to and will again, because if Labour thinks [...]

I would be happy to have the Strategic Deterrent included within the Review, but then I am fairly confident that its merits would be obvious.

Nuclear weapons utterly prevent the use of conventional warfare against Britain and Britain’s strategic interests, and that without them we would have to make good that yawning deficit by a massively increased conventional capability.

1. It negates the need for Britain to retain a heavy defence industrial capacity, in a country that will make its create its future wealth from innovation rather than manufacture.
2. It negates the need for Britain to retain a massive conventional Armed Forces for home defence in a country with declining amount interested and available military manpower.
3. It allows the creation and maintenance of an Armed Forces configured and postured for offensive military action out-of-area, i.e. it complements strategic power projection.
4. It provides political clout that helps Britain shape the world in its image, rather than the other way around, i.e. it helps preserve UNSC membership among other benefits.

http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/britain%E2%80%99s-future-strategic-direction-%E2%80%93-and-why-i-believe-the-ippr-are-wrong/

@Jed Our nukes were of no use in the Falklands, and they are a handicap in our battles with Iraq and Afghanistan, reducing our moral credibility with muslims many of whom regard WMDs as against the will of Allah.

Clearly they encourage Iran and N Korea in their nuclear programmes and make us a more likely target of terrorists who will, sooner or later, arm themselves with more potent weapons than gas (as I recall Japanese terrorists did a while back)

Many nuclear materials have gone missing, especially since the breakup of the USSR. This should be a significant factor in the decision.

And yet they still have all four of the crucial advantages listed above.

Not so, there is certainly no need for a heavier defence industry or defence staff to replace the useless nuclear one, decommissioning is the only expense to be set against the savings.

Ignoring the taramafaddle of no 3, nuclear weapons certainly help get Britain more widely hated than abandoning this big stick approach would. Even Great Britishers like Enoch Powell and Bulldog Drummond would laugh at all this nuclear posturing.

Ah, well that is an entirely different argument altogether.

If it is time for Britain to become just another medium sized ambitions, then yes, indeed we should ditch Trident, and reduce military spending to the NATO target of 2.0% of GDP.

Widespread public acceptance of that attitude has yet to be demonstrated however.

Trident (or its absence) makes no significant difference to our involvements in Iraq, Afghanistan, N Ireland, Falklands, Balkans, Korea, Isreal, Africa or any other theatre since WW2, except as an embarassment so far as most countries are concerned, albeit the USA would prefer us a a nuclear satellite and ally.

There is no need whatsoever to reduce other non nuclear military expendures: we might well continue as before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_expenditure#Military_budgets_.282003.29

There are not just a nuclear option and a severe downgrade of our military capability, and Labour’s Review should not recognise such limitations in scope.

we are going to have to remain disagreed then.

Seems very unlikely that any Commission set up by The Labour Party will restrict itself solely to the two options you imagine to be the only choices.

there are only two choices, you either have a credible and cost effective continuous nuclear deterrent…………………. or you don’t.

there is a third, which is to keep some nuclear armed cruise missiles, but that is a tactical nuclear weapon rather than a strategic nuclear deterrent, and i cannot see that being considered a viable choice by either the pro’s or the con’s.

You posited two options:

Kepp Trident and a high level of defence expenditure

Get rid of Trident and go for a 2% style level of expenditure.

Obviously there are many other options even so far as expenditure is concerned.

Let’s hope Labour does commission a review, and that the parameters relate to the real world.

I don’t recall our nuclear weapons playing any role in Aden, Cyprus, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Grenada or anywhere else either.

[...] in politics, Eric Joyce MP shares his ideas on Labour’s future defence [...]

I think, Trident replacement is really a Defence issue at at all but its also a cold national strategic and political one.

> We in Labour should commission our own Defence Review – one which includes Trident.

Right on.

Also do draw on the excellent Bradford Uni work on Peace Studies, esp economic arguments.