David Cameron entered a diplomatic row last night as he equated the future threat from China with that from Iran. David Miliband was quick to condemn the remarks.
David Cameron entered a diplomatic row during the leaders’ debate last night as he equated the future threat from China with that from Iran. Foreign Secretary David Miliband was quick to condemn the move.
During the debate, speaking in defence of the Conservative party policy to “renew britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based on the Trident missile system”, David Cameron said:
“Are we really happy to say that we’d give up our independent nuclear deterrent when we don’t know what is going to happen with Iran, we can’t be certain of the future in China?”
Watch it:
Foreign Secretary David Miliband was quick to condemn Cameron’s words:
“To put China and Iran in the same bracket is an insult to a follow permanent member of the UN security council and to a country with whom we have just announced a close strategic relationship. David Cameron should withdraw this slur now.”
The Conservatives issued a statement: “David Cameron was demonstrating the extent of uncertainties in the world, not saying China is a threat to the U.K.”
Scrapping Trident would not mean losing an independent nuclear deterrent. As Nick Clegg made clear on the Today programme last week, “you could equip the Astute submarine”. Left Foot Forward has estimated that £45 billion could be saved through this approach.
UPDATE 12.55:
Anna Chen writes for Labour List:
“Is Cameron seriously equating China with “rogue state” Iran? May I ask you in your saner moments, David (assuming you have any): with all the money they’re pouring into saving our sorry skint skins, why would China want to nuke its own investment?”
UPDATE 19.04:
Mike Ion has an interesting take on why “the scrapping of Trident could end up being a vote winner and not a vote loser.”
33 Responses to “David Cameron sees reds under the bed”
Helen
RT @psbook: The two big gaffes from Dave last night –> Reds under the bed http://is.gd/bvrRj & Dodgy cancer stats http://is.gd/bvrUl …
Can we trust the Tories on immigration? | Left Foot Forward
[…] David Cameron’s words have been pored over today. It turns out that his remarks on China’s expansionary ambitions, cancer rates in Bulgaria, Lexus purchases by the Hull constabulary, […]
Mr. Sensible
Will, I am not a defense expert, so cannot comment on which kind of system would be best, but we do need a Nuclear Deterrent.
And Devon Chap, I might venture to suggest that if Cameron wins that gaff won’t exactly improve relations with China..
S Leong
China and the UK have a strong relationship that is important to both countries’ economies and cultures. To talk about China – a permanent member of the Security council – in the same breath as a rogue state like Iran is an insult that will not go unnoticed in Beijing. It is offensive and downright insulting.
To use China as a justification for keeping nuclear weapons sounds like a return to outdated cold war rhetoric. It brings back memories of ‘Cheney’ politics.
This is the not the sort of language we would expect from a potential Prime Minister. It is offensive to both China and the Chinese community in the UK.
As Chair of Chinese for Labour, representing the views of the community in th UK, David Cameron should apologise formally for the offence he has caused with his remarks.
El Sid
Alan W/Mr Sensible – it was no gaffe. Cameron’s comment about Chinese nukes merely shows that he’s in the mainstream of Western military thought. If you Google suitable search terms on site:.mil and/or site:.gov you’ll see that Chinese ICBM capability has been exercising US military planners for over a decade, they’re the only NPT country that are increasing their warhead numbers. To get an overview see this assessment from the USAF :
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/naic/NASIC2009.pdf
Concerns about Chinese nuclear capability have even reached Congress, see this recent resolution calling on Obama not to go overboard on reducing US nuclear forces :
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.+Con.+Res.+217:
I think China can probably Google, and they can certainly take notice of proceedings in Congress!
Personally I quite like the idea of fitting Astute Block IV (or whatever it will be, technically it’s MUFC) with a couple of SLBMs, it will retain our deterrent whilst using our hard-won design experience of Astute and maximising the number of subs we have on patrol at hopefully a reasonable cost. But I’m not dogmatic on that, I’d want to see what the numbers said.
However Will I’d be sceptical of a cruise-missile based system because they’re much easier to shoot down. OK, the likes of China are supposedly gaining limited ABM capability with the HQ-9, but I’d still rather send 4 ballistic missiles (even without multiple warheads on each) than 16 cruise missiles against most of the targets we’re likely to want to nuke.