Monday, October 29, 2007
Like it or not defence policy must be debated again
Our current so-called ‘Trident’ policy is not a fudge. It is an acid drop, and we need to suck on it. That includes the current leadership candidates.
The implications for our policy are clear. We voted in Parliament to delay Vanguard renewal (and were defeated). We now have an obligation as a party to carry out the clearly implied next stage of the agreed policy. That is, to debate now the position the UK should take at the upcoming negotiations and bring forwards firm recommendations. That is the acid logic of our position.
The treaty reviews are in the year 2010 – and in the meantime in 2009 we are due to have a general election in which nuclear arms policy can hardly fail to be an issue.
We therefore need to revisit this issue in 2008 at the latest, and the current leadership contest is an inevitable part of the introduction to that debate. It would be the height of irresponsibility for any leadership candidate to brush this issue aside.
We should for example:
1 Look at the way the debates on this are put into ‘defining frames’ that shut out important questions and make sure we bring in some neglected frames and themes. Please, no more tribal ‘unilateralist or not’ hot-button posturing.
2 Insist that the whole question of expenditures on AWRE Aldermaston is put in the public domain, at least to equal the public accountability enforced on equivalent establishments in the USA.
3 Insist on a complete review of the way all our weapons procurement policies are managed especially on whether purchasing decision are made to subsidise industries rather than to meet vital defence needs.
4 Make clear the connections between the procurement mess and the corruption allegations about the dealings of BAe and certain foreign customers.
5 Examine the evolution of new non-nuclear high-destruction weapons that may make nuclear devices an expensive obsolescence in the next couple of decades.
6 Above all, insist on a clear strategy for armed forces evolution and for equipping our forces actually to do the jobs we say they must.
The party needs to get on with this and our leadership candidates need to give some indication on how this should be done. The choice of leader WILL frame part of our ongoing debate, there is no escaping that fact.
I have argued some of these points in more detail elsewhere
Framing the debate with link to a paper on ways to do this
Aldermaston costs and hiding facts from the public (with link to a Daily Mail expose)
Procurement polices and problems
Corruption and specifically BAe
The implications for our policy are clear. We voted in Parliament to delay Vanguard renewal (and were defeated). We now have an obligation as a party to carry out the clearly implied next stage of the agreed policy. That is, to debate now the position the UK should take at the upcoming negotiations and bring forwards firm recommendations. That is the acid logic of our position.
The treaty reviews are in the year 2010 – and in the meantime in 2009 we are due to have a general election in which nuclear arms policy can hardly fail to be an issue.
We therefore need to revisit this issue in 2008 at the latest, and the current leadership contest is an inevitable part of the introduction to that debate. It would be the height of irresponsibility for any leadership candidate to brush this issue aside.
We should for example:
1 Look at the way the debates on this are put into ‘defining frames’ that shut out important questions and make sure we bring in some neglected frames and themes. Please, no more tribal ‘unilateralist or not’ hot-button posturing.
2 Insist that the whole question of expenditures on AWRE Aldermaston is put in the public domain, at least to equal the public accountability enforced on equivalent establishments in the USA.
3 Insist on a complete review of the way all our weapons procurement policies are managed especially on whether purchasing decision are made to subsidise industries rather than to meet vital defence needs.
4 Make clear the connections between the procurement mess and the corruption allegations about the dealings of BAe and certain foreign customers.
5 Examine the evolution of new non-nuclear high-destruction weapons that may make nuclear devices an expensive obsolescence in the next couple of decades.
6 Above all, insist on a clear strategy for armed forces evolution and for equipping our forces actually to do the jobs we say they must.
The party needs to get on with this and our leadership candidates need to give some indication on how this should be done. The choice of leader WILL frame part of our ongoing debate, there is no escaping that fact.
I have argued some of these points in more detail elsewhere
Framing the debate with link to a paper on ways to do this
Aldermaston costs and hiding facts from the public (with link to a Daily Mail expose)
Procurement polices and problems
Corruption and specifically BAe
Labels: BAe, defence policy, Submarines, Trident, WMD
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, June 08, 2007
Astute - the ongoing Nuclear Navy issue (and the BAe row)
So how is the Nuclear Navy getting on? We do need to keep an eye on this as at some stage in the future a decision will have to be made by the Party on accepting or not accepting the Vanguard (read ‘Trident’) deployment. Month by month 'new facts' are being created which will make alternative decisons more difficult.
And the nuclear navy is closely linked to the ongoing sagas of BAe systems, the state within the state that constructs these vessels and which is of course embroiled in the Saudi Slush Fund allegations. How much pressure are BAe able to put on Her Majesty’s Government because HMG is totally committed to nuclear propulsion for our submarines and job creation through the naval construction programme, and BAe is the only means they have to carry this through?
The first of the new Astute class hunter-killer submarines that will protect any Vanguard force was launched today, 8th June 2007. They will replace the existing Swiftsure-Class submarines and it now seems also the Trafalgar-Class submarines.
Four years late, the Astute programme is already nearly £1000 million over budget.
The Astute and its sister ships will be able to fire cruise missiles (possibly nuclear armed) – targeting South Africa or Brazil (for example) if needs be from launch locations in the Irish Sea or similar lattitude.
All Royal Navy submarines are nuclear powered. The UK has shunned the alternative of building modern diesel-electric submarines or the new ‘air-independent’ diesel propulsion used in the latest German submarines. These alternatives are markedly cheaper, and would permit the Royal Navy to purchase and deploy more vessels.
A question – by concentrating on building a few very large and expensive submarines is the Royal Navy losing the capacity to operate in the shallower waters of the seas to the east of Britain – effectively placing the responsibility for the submarine defence of our Eastern Approaches waters on the German and Dutch navies with their smaller, cheaper and more numerous vessels?
Since the first duty of the Astutes will be the protection of the Vanguard boats (which will carry our 'Ultimate Deterrent') what possible alternative operational deployments will the Royal Navy be prevented from carrying through because of these commitments? How important are these other defence stances to our security from amilitary point of view?
Are these boats being purchased because they represent the opportunity to maintain a certain kind of industrial capability rather than the best bet for long-term defence capability?
And the nuclear navy is closely linked to the ongoing sagas of BAe systems, the state within the state that constructs these vessels and which is of course embroiled in the Saudi Slush Fund allegations. How much pressure are BAe able to put on Her Majesty’s Government because HMG is totally committed to nuclear propulsion for our submarines and job creation through the naval construction programme, and BAe is the only means they have to carry this through?
The first of the new Astute class hunter-killer submarines that will protect any Vanguard force was launched today, 8th June 2007. They will replace the existing Swiftsure-Class submarines and it now seems also the Trafalgar-Class submarines.
Four years late, the Astute programme is already nearly £1000 million over budget.
The Astute and its sister ships will be able to fire cruise missiles (possibly nuclear armed) – targeting South Africa or Brazil (for example) if needs be from launch locations in the Irish Sea or similar lattitude.
All Royal Navy submarines are nuclear powered. The UK has shunned the alternative of building modern diesel-electric submarines or the new ‘air-independent’ diesel propulsion used in the latest German submarines. These alternatives are markedly cheaper, and would permit the Royal Navy to purchase and deploy more vessels.
A question – by concentrating on building a few very large and expensive submarines is the Royal Navy losing the capacity to operate in the shallower waters of the seas to the east of Britain – effectively placing the responsibility for the submarine defence of our Eastern Approaches waters on the German and Dutch navies with their smaller, cheaper and more numerous vessels?
Since the first duty of the Astutes will be the protection of the Vanguard boats (which will carry our 'Ultimate Deterrent') what possible alternative operational deployments will the Royal Navy be prevented from carrying through because of these commitments? How important are these other defence stances to our security from amilitary point of view?
Are these boats being purchased because they represent the opportunity to maintain a certain kind of industrial capability rather than the best bet for long-term defence capability?
Labels: defence strategy, nuclear weapons, Submarines
Comments:
Post a Comment
