N-deterrent will be based on subs: PM
DAVID Cameron has reaffirmed his commitment to a submarine-based nuclear deterrent, arguing he did not think an alternative would save cash.
The Prime Minister also said having a continuous at-sea presence was vital to its credibility.
He told MPs at Westminster the Government was moving ahead with replacing the four ageing Vanguard-class vessels, which currently carry the Trident missiles.
It comes as former Liberal Democrat Defence Minister Sir Nick Harvey, who lost his job in the recent reshuffle, said the Government may not be able to afford to renew the deterrent because of the cost pressures from future military projects.
BRAND NEW FORD B-MAX ZETEC 1.0 ECOBOOST FOR ONLY £7685*
View details
DRIVE AWAY A BRAND NEW FORD B-MAX ZETEC FOR ONLY £7685.
1.0 100PS Manual
WITH:
Electric Windows & Mirrors
Quickclear Heated Windscreen
15" Alloy Wheels
Bluetooth with Ford Sync
Fog Lights
Terms:
*Drive away from only £7685 and then pay nothing for 24 months!
4.9% APR
Conditions Apply
Contact: 01626 240583
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
The plans have far-reaching implications for thousands of jobs in Plymouth.
Devonport is the UK's only base with the specialist facilities and skilled workforce needed to maintain the current and future submarine fleet.
Sir Nick said the Ministry of Defence was scheduled to pay for the Joint Strike Fighters, new Type 26 frigates and unmanned aircraft when Trident was coming up for renewal.
He urged the PM to consider whether it was necessary to spend millions renewing the missile system.
The Lib Dems are undertaking a review looking at whether there are cheaper alternatives to building the new Trident-carrying vessels.
"This has to come out of the defence budget and austerity is with us for some time yet," Sir Nick said.
But Mr Cameron insisted that the Government had planned for the expenditure and the projects were fully-funded.
He said: "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.
"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 concerns that replacing Trident with a part-time deterrent could be "dangerously destabilising", Mr Cameron said the Government was already working to replace Vanguard.
"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," the PM added.
Comments
by Nevman
Saturday, October 20 2012, 2:20PM
“Temper, temper, Charlie. Now, instead of hurling out increasingly childish insults, how about answering the question about how you square your enthusiastic support of UKIP (and, in a previous incarnation, membership of the BNP) with your non-credible claims to support Chaz Singh, a Labour councillor from an ethnic minority.
You can't, can you, because you're a silly little liar who's been caught red-handed.
Now go back to your immature war fantasies and see how they square up to that other lie you keep spinning - the one where, apparently, you ask Jesus what he would do and he tells you to spread hate and lies.”
by CharlieDodd
Saturday, October 20 2012, 3:21AM
“All these countries have nuclear weapons so only unpatriotic fluffballs would want to disarm Britain and leave us defenceless..:)
USA,Russia,Britain,France ,China,India,Pakistan,Nth Korea,Israel.”
by Nevman
Friday, October 19 2012, 9:37PM
“Stalking me here because I asked a question you can't answer about your claimed 'support' for Chaz Singh conflicting with your self-confessed enthusiasm for UKIP and the BNP, CharlieBob?
I'd say a lying, corrupt, vindictive, self-obsessed dictator like Putin was more up your street than mine.”
by CharlieDodd
Friday, October 19 2012, 9:19PM
“..Nevman said- 'a nuclear deterrent is meaningless in the face of 21st century threats to national security and therefore there really is no point in having one at all'..
Go tell that to your mate Putin..:)”
by Nevman
Friday, October 19 2012, 8:38PM
“"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."
It's a pity Cameron doesn't follow his own logic through to its obvious conclusion, i.e. that a nuclear deterrent is meaningless in the face of 21st century threats to national security and therefore there really is no point in having one at all.”
by HermesThelema
Friday, October 19 2012, 7:53PM
“For all intending purposes here we see David Cameron towing what is usually Oliver Colvile or Alison Seabeck's party line.”