This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/defence-and-security-blog/2013/apr/30/defence-budget-trident

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Pressures mount on UK defence spending Pressures mount on UK defence spending
(5 months later)
There is a bitter-sweet irony in the minister now demanding government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, to cut their budgets, being the one handling the "alternatives to Trident" review.There is a bitter-sweet irony in the minister now demanding government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, to cut their budgets, being the one handling the "alternatives to Trident" review.
The responsibility falls on Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. He took over the task after Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, was sacked last September.The responsibility falls on Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. He took over the task after Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, was sacked last September.
Plans to spend billions of pounds on a like-for-like replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear submarine fleet are based on "outdated and ludicrous" ideas about deterrence, Harvey told a UN conference earlier this month.Plans to spend billions of pounds on a like-for-like replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear submarine fleet are based on "outdated and ludicrous" ideas about deterrence, Harvey told a UN conference earlier this month.
"In the decade or so from 2017-18, the current plan is to spend between £25bn and £30bn building four vast new submarines whose sole purpose will be to patrol the high seas 24/7 waggling our nuclear bomb at – er – no one in particular. For another 30 years we'll spend £3bn a year in today's money operating them, and one day it will cost several billion more to decommission our nukes", he wrote in the Guardian."In the decade or so from 2017-18, the current plan is to spend between £25bn and £30bn building four vast new submarines whose sole purpose will be to patrol the high seas 24/7 waggling our nuclear bomb at – er – no one in particular. For another 30 years we'll spend £3bn a year in today's money operating them, and one day it will cost several billion more to decommission our nukes", he wrote in the Guardian.
Meanwhile, David Cameron and Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, continue to insist that maintaining a Trident fleet with a submarine equipped with ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads "continuously at sea" is the only effective deterrent.Meanwhile, David Cameron and Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, continue to insist that maintaining a Trident fleet with a submarine equipped with ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads "continuously at sea" is the only effective deterrent.
It is hard to imagine a British government agreeing to make significant cuts in its nuclear arsenal — even harder, perhaps, now that the French (socialist) government in its defence white paper published on Tuesday emphatically committed itself to maintain its own arsenal of sea and air-launched nuclear weapons.It is hard to imagine a British government agreeing to make significant cuts in its nuclear arsenal — even harder, perhaps, now that the French (socialist) government in its defence white paper published on Tuesday emphatically committed itself to maintain its own arsenal of sea and air-launched nuclear weapons.
The French nuclear arsenal is "completely ring-fenced", French officials emphasised on Tuesday. Yet both the British and French economies are suffering and how money is spent on their armed forces should be subjected to the most careful scrutiny.The French nuclear arsenal is "completely ring-fenced", French officials emphasised on Tuesday. Yet both the British and French economies are suffering and how money is spent on their armed forces should be subjected to the most careful scrutiny.
Though the French defence budget is not being cut as much as the British (which is facing cuts of more than 8%), the cost of equipment will mean they are shedding manpower, just as the British armed forces, the army in particular, is doing.Though the French defence budget is not being cut as much as the British (which is facing cuts of more than 8%), the cost of equipment will mean they are shedding manpower, just as the British armed forces, the army in particular, is doing.
And while Britain is building two large aircraft carriers, which the Commons public accounts committee has warned could cost as much as £12bn, France has abandoned its plan to build a second carrier.And while Britain is building two large aircraft carriers, which the Commons public accounts committee has warned could cost as much as £12bn, France has abandoned its plan to build a second carrier.
Britain and France showed in Libya and Mali they are still incapable of operating in even limited conflicts without US help - for intelligence-gathering and refuelling aircraft, communications, drones, and bombs.Britain and France showed in Libya and Mali they are still incapable of operating in even limited conflicts without US help - for intelligence-gathering and refuelling aircraft, communications, drones, and bombs.
"While the United States would like to be able to rely more on its European allies, many experts doubt that even the strongest among them, Britain and France, could carry out their part of another Libya operation now, and certainly not in a few years", the New York Times observed earlier this month."While the United States would like to be able to rely more on its European allies, many experts doubt that even the strongest among them, Britain and France, could carry out their part of another Libya operation now, and certainly not in a few years", the New York Times observed earlier this month.
It added: "The situation in Britain is so bad that American officials are quietly urging it to drop its expensive nuclear deterrent".It added: "The situation in Britain is so bad that American officials are quietly urging it to drop its expensive nuclear deterrent".
It quoted a senior American official as saying: "They can't afford Trident and they need to confront the choice: either they can be a nuclear power and nothing else or a real military partner".It quoted a senior American official as saying: "They can't afford Trident and they need to confront the choice: either they can be a nuclear power and nothing else or a real military partner".
That is a hugely significant comment, from Britain's closest ally.That is a hugely significant comment, from Britain's closest ally.
The US now accounts for nearly three-quarters of Nato's expenditure. The once trumpeted French-German brigade, remains unused. When the French wanted to deploy it in Mali, the Germans objected.The US now accounts for nearly three-quarters of Nato's expenditure. The once trumpeted French-German brigade, remains unused. When the French wanted to deploy it in Mali, the Germans objected.
General Vincent Desportes, former head of France's School of War, warned that France's decision to "sanctify" its nuclear deterrent to the detriment of conventional forces meant "we will end up with a model that doesn't work, namely the nuclear bomb plus gendarmes."General Vincent Desportes, former head of France's School of War, warned that France's decision to "sanctify" its nuclear deterrent to the detriment of conventional forces meant "we will end up with a model that doesn't work, namely the nuclear bomb plus gendarmes."
Britain is in danger of going down that path.Britain is in danger of going down that path.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.