- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
PM sees no savings in Trident alternatives
18 October 2012
Cameron was asked by former Armed Forces minister Nick Harvey if the government would keep an "open mind" on the replacement of the nuclear deterrent, bearing in mind the cost pressures of large new equipment orders such as the Joint Strike Fighters, Type 26 frigates, drone aircraft and new scout vehicles for the army
During his time as the coalition government's armed forces minister, Harvey instigated a Cabinet Office review of alternatives to the Trident system. Liberal Democrat leadership traded Harvey out of the Ministry of Defence in early September, and the review is now being overseen by Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander.
Cameron told Parliament that all of the programmes Harvey had named were already fully funded as a result of the balancing of the defence budget earlier this year.
"Having carefully considered the issue of the nuclear deterrent, I do not believe that we would save money by adopting an alternative nuclear deterrent posture," he added.
"Also, if we are to have a nuclear deterrent, it makes sense to ensure we have something that is credible and believable, otherwise there is no point in having one at all."
Responding to a separate question from Julian Lewis MP, the Prime Minister said: "One of the key elements of the credibility of our deterrent has been that it is continuously at sea, and the Royal Navy takes immense pride in having been able to deliver that without a break over so many years.
"I have met some of the crews and visited some of the submarines. What they do is incredibly impressive and I pay tribute to them for the service that they provide. Yes, being continuously at sea is a key part of our deterrent."
HAVE YOUR SAY
18 October 2012
"I do not believe that we would save money by adopting an alternative nuclear deterrent posture," Perhaps the same people who told him cancelling the second carrier would be more expensive than keeping it whispered that new one in his ear. Its about the same level of absurdity.
One Trident boat isn't particularly credible either against the Russian federation who are the only real threat. Worldwide disarmament would be a better defence - but Cameron has no plans for that.
Jeremy - Newcastle
18 October 2012
Worldwide disarmament is a pipe dream. For once David cameron is talking sense on a matter of defence. The Russian federation is not the only real threat either. Respectfully I have to disagree with you completley.
David Forster - Durham
18 October 2012
Finally a bit of common sense.
You'd have the costs of withdrawing Trident then the cost of producing it in another form.
Might as well bumble along with Trident.
Putting it in a cupboard, stupid idea.
Global disarmament? You tell that to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, China.. Some are saying even Burma are thinking of a program!
Paul R
18 October 2012
who do we need a nuclear deterrent against, other than to posture and present this country as a serious player, but whats the gae? Sadly its the same old tory mantra and the reviews were a bogus waste of time to placate their libdem dogs!
cat - uk
18 October 2012
Sound thinking but flawed execution in making it part of the MoD budget. Should come out of central funds (like Foreign Aid).
AW Employee - Yeovil
18 October 2012
Global disarmament, the number of nations with access to nuclear technology for weapon use will increase. The threat of nuclear/ biological/chemical attack from a rogue state or terrorist organisation is a real threat. The only safeguard we have is the knowledge by such enemy is that we would totally destroy them in the event such an attack. Disarmament and appeasement, look to the 1930's of were such a policy ends up.
GB - Kingdom of Fife
18 October 2012
cat - uk
That is one of the reasons, yes.
Perhaps you'd rather have the political, economic, military, industrial and cultural impact of Bangladesh?
Stop the little Britain nonsense.
The UK is a P5 and G8 member, and should be as influential in as many areas as possible.
Not belittling ourselves like you want.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
18 October 2012
If it wasn't for the NPT there would be many more nuclear states already - it is a partially successful treaty already. But the NPT isn't a mechanism for Britain and the other powers keeping their nuclear monopoly. They agree to disarm in return for other countries not developing weapons.
Not only is that the UK's legal obligtation, its very short sighted to imagine that the UK can be part of some weapon-keeping cartel in the long term. And to think that the existing weapons stockpiles aren't the thing that is motivating other countries to acquire them.
Proliferation doesn't equal more safety. Its a huge industrial undertaking to develop a nuclear weapon. The only way terrorists could aquire them - is thanks to proliferation.
If there is no disarmament now - and it isn't likely given the likes of Cameron - then when fission-free nuclear weapons are devoloped the world will be one really really mad and dangerous place.
Jeremy - Newcastle
18 October 2012
CASD is the only credible option for a 24 hour 365 days a week deterrent that is not that easy for anyone to detect we are too small a nation for land based ICBM.
Russia is still a major threat today and has global ambitions perhaps beyond her current means,but in 15 years nobody knows,so can we be honest none of us know's what the threat will be in 20, 30, 40 years time how many predicted 11 years ago 9/11 and our intervention in afganistan let alone the 2003 invasion of iraq.
Trident and it's replacement is the ultimate insurance weapon it will be around for anywhere between 30 and 50 years. There is no credible alternative that can supply us with that insurance for the next half a decade. It is the only game in town.
andy - solihull
18 October 2012
A man who doesn't even know that "credible" and "believable" are synonyms tells me, without citing one shred of supporting evidence, that he's decided (in his infinite wisdom) Trident is the only viable option for a nuclear deterrent. Without taxing his brain with fundamental questions such as who the deterrent is actually intended to deter these days and whether the answer justifies the fabulous expense of renting US missiles, building submarines to carry them, providing the associated infrastructure and deploying the missiles at sea to protect them from a massive first strike, he then proceeds to discourse irrelevantly about the Royal Navy's pride in delivering this capability. I'm sure but that has no bearing on whether it's necessary or even sensible.
The man got his job by being glib and that's what he's doing here. What motivates him at bottom is the conviction that being able to wave Trident about makes David Cameron look like a big man.
Stan - York
18 October 2012
Worldwide disarmament, means the first nutter dictator with 50 crude Hiroshima bombs gets to rule the world.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
19 October 2012
"Worldwide disarmament would be a better defence - but Cameron has no plans for that." Jeremy.
I agree. David Cameron should get rid of all British nuclear weapons
and then everyone else will follow our lead. Yeah, Right!
Dave - Wellington NZ
19 October 2012
"Until the wolf shall lay with lamb, we'd better be the wolves."
–Ehud Barak
mikecml - essex