National Austerity Versus National Security

John Prescott writes:

Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face, particularly international terrorism.

Who said that? Jeremy Corbyn? CND? The Archbishop of Canterbury? No.

It was three of the most respected and experienced military experts in the country – former Head of the Armed Forces Field Marshall Lord Bramall and former Generals Lord Ramsbotham and Sir Hugh Beach.

They added: “Our independent deterrent has become virtually ­irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics.” 

They wanted to see the “huge” £20billion expense of renewing Trident spent on more conventional weapons and funding for our armed forces.

These former army chiefs said they wanted to start a debate on Trident. Just like Jeremy. 

They wanted to see the money better spent on protecting our country from modern terrorism. Just like Jeremy.

And they rejected claims that not renewing Trident would see us lose our place on the UN Security Council. Just like Jeremy.

The armed chiefs went further. Lord Ramsbotham said: “I don’t think it is independent. First of all, we don’t own the missiles.

“And secondly, I think it’s absolutely unthinkable that we should consider or even threaten using it without having clearance of the US.” 

So we’d been spending at least £20billion – and possibly as much as £100billion – on a weapons system that’s “completely useless”, that we can’t use independently and that would be better spent on our existing armed forces.

I remember the discussions about whether we should renew Trident back in the Labour Governments. I can tell you that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, expressed similar concerns in a Cabinet discussion.

They also agreed that a full debate on Trident would have to take place by 2015/2016. And that’s exactly what Jeremy is doing.

The problem is that Trident now is being used as political tactic by the Tories to hit Labour in the same way they used the myth that we caused a global economic crash, not greedy bankers.

Labour is absolutely right to debate Trident – in a calm and grown-up way with all the facts known.

Our policy is currently, and has been for decades, to support nuclear submarines as a deterrent. But times have changed. 

The decision to renew Trident must be based on facts, not rushed through by the Tories in a snap parliamentary vote. Or be influenced by Labour MPs threatening to resign. 

Because who exactly is the threat to national security? Is it the respected and trusted army chiefs who say Trident is an expensive waste of money? 

Or is it a Tory Government that over the last six years has slashed the defence budget by almost 20%? These cuts are leading to the loss of 20,000 soldiers and 10,000 fewer servicemen and woman in the Navy and Royal Air Force. 

The Chatham House foreign policy experts warned in a report the cuts have “weakened British defensive capabilities and impaired the country’s ability to project power.” 

And Ashton Carter, the US defence secretary, said Britain could become “disengaged” if it continued to make substantial cuts to defence spending. 

That’s why Labour should spend more time attacking these dangerous Tory defence cuts and less time publicly arguing with itself. 

Because the security threat to the UK isn’t from Jeremy Corbyn. It’s from a right-wing Government that’s hell bent on putting national austerity ahead of national security.

And Peter Hitchens writes:

The Government wants you to support the renewal of the absurdly elaborate and huge Trident missile system.

I see that the Defence Ministry organised, as a complete coincidence, a press trip to show off the red Scalextric-type nuclear trigger I was allowed to play with aboard HMS Repulse 30 years ago.

Well, Israel, a more fearsome nuclear power than us, facing a greater danger, doesn’t waste its money on such a luxury item.

Spending £100billion on Trident, and neglecting your conventional forces as a result, is like spending so much on insuring yourself against abduction by aliens that you can’t afford cover for fire and theft.