Monday, October 29, 2007
Like it or not defence policy must be debated again
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
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Who when I scream will hear me amongst the Angelic Orders?
Manufactured by RAYTHON, These are examples of ‘active denial systems’, colloquially known as less-than-lethal devices. They are intended for use in crowd control by throwing an energy beam that causes intense pain.
Even the Daily Mail is shocked about the torture possibilities of this device.
A square transmitter as big as a plasma TV screen is mounted on the back of a Jeep. When turned on, it emits an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings. It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile.
Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury. But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, (an) agonising sensation ….
Silent Guardian is supposed to be the 21st century equivalent of tear gas or water cannon - a way of getting crowds to disperse quickly and with minimum harm. Its potential is obvious…. In tests, even the most hardened (US) Marines flee after a few seconds of exposure. It just isn't possible to tough it out.
This machine has the ability to inflict limitless, unbearable pain.
Daily Mail 18th September 2007
The next thing up are the Pulsed Energy Projectile Weapons, lasers that throw a beam precisely tuned to generate a plasma of superheated gas if it hits human skin. It has a range of about 18km.
Labels: energy weapons, TASERS, Torture, WMD
