Former defence chief General Dannatt, who advises David Cameron and the Conservative front bench, has signalled his opposition to the renewal of Trident.
General Dannatt, the former chief of defence staff who controversially accepted a Cameron invitation to advise the Conservative front bench, has signalled his opposition to the renewal of Trident.
General Dannatt said that the lifetime of the current Trident-bearing Vanguard class submarines should be maintained for a period of a further 15 years but not necessarily beyond that. Dannatt said that the UK should keep Trident:
“At present we should keep it but not forever.”
Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox responded:
“Our position, as stated by David Cameron, is we intend to maintain a minimum credible submarine based nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom. Let me reassure the people of Barrow, there is no question of changing this policy.”
The debate among Tory defence advisers on the future of Trident comes in the wake of the influential Chalmers Report on the costs and consequences of Minsitry of Defence budget cuts and a public disagreement between the current Chief of the Defence Staff General Richards and the First Sea Lord Admiral Stanhope on the long term need for Britain to possess full spectrum warfare capabilities as epitomised by massive procurement projects like Trident’s successor, the Joint Strike Fighter and the planned new aircraft carriers.
This blog has previously detailed how scrapping Trident could free up some 45bn GBP in the long term defence budget.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
9 Responses to “Dannatt off message on Tory Trident plans”
Graham
The Greenpeace report on Trident replacement’s costs, which has not been challenged by the MOD, puts the total cost at £97 billion, more than double your figure. Of course that saving wouldn’t have to all be spent elsewhere in the defence budget – it could save schools and hospitals, or the climate.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/peace/trident-costs-are-running-out-control-20090917
Stu
And the Labour Party’s position on Trident is… ??
As with David Nutt and drugs, this seems like a simple case of an expert speaking his mind on a politically difficult matter. I wonder if Dannatt will get the same treatment from the Tories that Nutt received from Labour?
Meandering Mammal
One wonders why the MoD might bother challenging a work of fiction by Greenpeace. Personally I’d rather that the cash required to do so went to deliver military effect.
Whilst Dannatt may have that view, and fwiw I’m undecided on the deterrent at the moment, the fact is that we do need to be making the decisions around the successor now.
And the argument that we can replace one capability with a completely different one, strategic first strike deterrent with a tactical second strike, isn’t taken seriously by anyone that understands the debate.
What’s interesting is Fox desperately trying to look as if he knows what he’s on about 🙂 Gods help defence if he gets that brief!
Marcus Roberts
Thanks everyone for the comments!
– The Greenpeace Report is a serious and impressive effort that has earned the respect of policy analysts of of different political colours. My use of 45bn in the previous piece was borne out of a desire to maintain a nuclear-powered sub fleet (and indeed expand it in terms of both numbers and capacities).
– The Labour Party and Trident: the view of a majority of the PLP is opposed and the govt may yet shift its public position at the NPT talks later this year. Stay tuned.
– Having discussed the matter in detail and at length with Admirals, engineers, defence consultants, civil servants and former ministers I am in no doubt that the decision on son-of-Trident can be delayed by at least 5 years. Astute’s modification debate is another matter but the technical feasibility is not in question – besides, BAE themselves have been forced to acknowledge that a totally new submarine platform for ICBMs is not the only show in town and that a modified Astute could serve that purpose.
– Fox: I’m not one to root for the Tories but he does handle his brief credibly. I may disagree but I don’t doubt his grasp of the subject matter. the debate between himself and Dannat is a healthy one in policy terms even as it may make for choppy waters politically.
Meandering Mammal
It’s difficult to argue with ”I’m in no doubt”, however I’d question a few assumptions. Not least is the conflation of nuclear powered boats with the SLBM launch platform. Bombers and attack boats are very different beasts, and neither of them launch ICBMs.
There are a range of issues with delay, not least driving up the costs but also the risk around UK PLC being technically capable of supporting the design and build process in the future.
As far as using an attack boat to launch nuc tipped cruise missiles is concerned, it’s certainly a discussion to have, and clearly is’t in the interest of Big and Expensive to present it as an option. Technical feasibility isn’t really an objection I’d have, but I would question whether the modelling indicates the ability of an Astute variant to deliver a comparable military effect. The attrition rate on sub-sonic low flying weapons is likely to be quite high so to deliver the effect would need many more weapons being launched by the platform, or indeed platforms. Survivability of the platform also needs demonstrated, bombers coast around slowly and quietly, keeping clear of hostiles in deep water until they need to launch. Attack boats move faster, are louder and would have to operate in the shallow littoral, therefore being more vulnerable to a wider range of threats.
My issues with fox are his short termism, and his compartmentalisation of issues. He can talk credibly about individual topics, he doesn’t appear to knit together a holistic view. I appreciate that he’s a politician, and subtle arguments about force protection, effects delivery and the like aren’t going to be communicated in the media, but the result is the treatment of the individual services in isolation, appearing to cultivate a culture that will lead to infighting further down the line. He either doesn’t ”get it” or he’s planning on running things on a divide and rule basis, neither of which are good for the UK.