Gordon Brown gets something right!

chris as usual

I do hope he finds a job one day that suits him

Andy Mac

He is not offering to decommission one of the Trident fleet at all, just order one less Trident successor. The impact on the worlds nuclear arsenal is minimal, we usually only keep one Trident at sea at any one time anyway. The cost impact is negligible as the expense of running three is only marginally less than four.

So Brown did something right? Grabbed a free headline with quite a few sops thrown out, quite clever really.

C

You've got to be kidding, right?

This is Brown up to his old tricks. Please the core vote, appear all statesman like, a bit of "cutting" (after all Mandelson tells us that this was always the plan anyway) etc.

We didn't buy 4 Trident boats for fun but for sound operational reasons. As the class gets older the requirement for 4 boats gets more important, not less.

Why do you journalists fall for this sort of rubbish?

Rob C

I'm no military tactician, but I would have thought a reduction in warheads made far more sense than a reduction in vessels? It may not make the same savings in terms of running costs, but as a 'deterrent' do we really need the number of warheads we have? Given the nature of modern warfare and the global spread of Britain's interests I'd be backing a larger fleet of perhaps a dozen 'nuclear capable' subs, but less than half the number of warheads. Perhaps only 3 of these would be nuclear armed at any time, but a prospective enemy would not easily be able to identify which, nor their location. Do we really need the number of warheads we have? We are hardly likely to take on the likes of Russia or China, and could still eradicate any of the smaller 'rogue' states if attacked.

Andy

No David, that's an absolute load of rubbish.

We need 4 boats because we need redundancy if one of them breaks. 3 boats is the absolute minimum to operate on, but it's simply not sensible to do so.

And they can break. In February 2009 one of our nuclear-armed subs (HMS Vanguard) collided with a French sub. Result - had to return to base for repairs. In 2002 HMS Trafalgar ran aground off the Isle of Skye. Result - had to return to base for repairs.

The current policy is to have one on active patrol, with the other three rotating: one returning from a three-month patrol, one in the maintenance berth, and one in long-term refit in Devonport.
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3196955.ece)

If we have only 3 boats, one has to be out on active duty, one undergoing maintenance and the other in port/on training exercises. There is no flexibility in this. This is just about acceptable until you suddenly have one less boat, whether as a result of simple accident or, heaven forbid, enemy action.

Deterrent-wise, we are then stuffed. And that is not acceptable to me.

C

You aren't falling for this are you? You should know Our Dear Leader well enough by now.

Firstly, the reason we have 4 SSBN's is to meet the operational requirement of having one on patrol at all times. As the Trident boats age the requirement for 4 boats increases, rather than decreases.

Secondly, Brown is playing a game here. A token towards the core vote (nuclear disarmament), and some gestures towards the public: "look at me I'm a world statesman" and "look I know how to save money" (which he was always going to do anyway according to Mandelson - yeah, right).

Why do the press fall for this guff?

smurf

@chris as usual

Gordon Brown, or David Blackburn? If true to form, expect both to back-track in a day or two....

C

Sorry two posts saying the same thing. Didn't think the first had published.

AndyinBrum

Hmmm, anybody would think that this was a cover to ensure that the Baroness Scotland story stops being the main news.

3 instead of 4 subs is a bad idea, reduce the number of missiles and spread them between the 4 cans

HO Lim-peng

What an utter disgrace that this huge defence policy shift has not even been debated in Parliament. The country is in a very dangerous state of drift, an immediate general election is required.

TrevorsDen

There are different ways to operate a nuclear deterrent. We could back up a smaller number of submarines (armed with a mix of missiles and cruise missiles) with aircraft for instance.

But I agree with whoever said Brown is 'giving away nothing' we are already reducing our warheads - if indeed we ae offering one of our current boats then that is an economy cut dressed up as something else.

If it is a future boat - it is years and years away and will not go down well in Barrow in Furness.

Paul B

It a typical Brown tactic, sounds good initially, but on closer inspection, its meaningless. Also cleverly designed to pinch the Lib Dems thunder in their conference week.

Its doesn't convince the disarmers, as we will still have nuclear deterrent.

To economists, the saving between three subs and four will be trivial in the big picture.

To those like me, who believe we need to maintain a nuclear deterrent, I'm not at all convinced that three into four goes. The argument for four subs was that one was always on station- with another preparing to relieve it-another travelling back, re-equipping and a fourth in reserve. Made sense, its makes sense. I don`t see that anything has changed. Except that now Pakistan has nukes, probably S Korea does and Iran not far off- with Saudi Arabia likely to be following on if Iran goes nuclear. Unilaterally disarming now would be crazy.

Andrew K

Is he decommissioning one? Or merely flogging it to Libya?

A J Scott

It is utterly distressing that with the PM's record of deceit and lies, one cannot actually guess what this announcement really means now, nor what it will in the end turn out to mean.

Billy Blofeld

No. Gordon isn't right. He has driven the country close to bankruptcy and we now can't afford a proper nuclear deterrent.

Patricia Shaw

It is a timely and in the present circumstances highly relevant contribution to Obama's brave lead.

And it's also part of the ongoing pressure on Iran, which is the the only non starter, because even if the rest of the destroyed its nuclear arsenal, Israel surely would n't.

Nicholas

" . . . but this is a magnanimous, forward looking gesture designed to bring Iran to the negotiating table."

Ha ha ha! Next time you go to a zoo, offer to feed the lions by going into their cage with the meat. I'm sure they'll appreciate the "magnanimous, forward looking gesture" and concentrate on enjoying the meat rather than you.

Irene

No - he doesn't get it right.

You cannot believe or trust a word this man says

Moraymint

Will he win the General Election now?

Scary Biscuits

This is another mad proposal from a deranged PM.

Nuclease weapons always have been on the edge of affordability for this country. The reason we bought four submarines and not, say, 6 is that four was the absolute minimum to be able to guarantee one was always at sea (one on patrol, one on harbour leave/minor repairs, one on training and one in dock for major repairs).
Dropping it to 3 means that we are sacrificing our ability to respond to a first strike by somebody else. For example, if extremists funded by Iran were to detonate a nuclear warheads and take out these submarines all conveniently, for them, alongside at the same time (perhaps with Russian help) then we would be powerless to respond.

It's also nonsense as a political jesture because everybody knows we can't afford them and so we're negotiating from a position of weakness - and people should know where than leads.

Paul L

'Gordon Brown gets something right!'

Please don't encourage him, he'll start grinning.

Nicholas Hallam

We have sufficient experience of Gordon Brown to know that magnanimity is not part of his nature - unless it was magnanimous of him to let the AG stay in post, or to bring Mandelson back to government, or to release the Lockerbie bomber. I should look for a different explanation, and one far less benign.

AAE

At first I thought the headline to this post was ironic! Dear oh dear! Wishful thinking as an arm of defence policy costs innocents their lives. Anyone working for The Spectator is in a privileged position and should have a greater grasp of reality. This sort of thinking might make you feel like a good person but is no real protection against a present danger.

Nicholas

"Please don't encourage him, he'll start grinning."

Or gurning.

Alun Reynolds

Utter folly. He might as well can the Trident replacement program entirely as this strategy will leave us without a credible deterrent (for reasons which others have explained).

And another thing. Has the Speccie changed hands or something because I detect a steady and significant shift away from the right in the content.

Or is it just me?

Minnie Ovens

What part of the word "deterrent" is not understood here?
One of the negatives of growing old is to see the terrifying naivete of the young and their incomprehension of the lessons of history

Disillusioned

I wouldn't trust this government to represent clearly and truthfully what the military are saying about Trident. I suspect the alleged "acceptance" of being able to work with only 3 boats would be so heavily caveated as to be essentially worthless.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Is there anything left to protect? Brown and his stinking Nu Labour crew have managed to tear into the very fabric of Britain, and change a country which was once a leading part of the developed world, into a poor imitation of the Third World, filled with religious fanatics and a self-hating native born popukation. So what need is there for nuclear weaponry or indeed bow and arrows? Does he need a limited supply to support Libya and perhaps even Iran?

Brian Williamson

When was this debated? Or is it fag packet diplomacy?

This is hugely important stuff yet the first we hear is on BBC News as his new policy. Only a few months ago the 'Squeaker' told us this media briefing before Commons debate was to be ended.

Another lie then from Brown, in fact this very announcement could be one also.

Welcome to the swamp.

TGF UKIP

Youthful apprentice or not, I'm afraid allowing naive nonsense like this to appear on its website is not likely to enhance the reputation of the Speccie.

This as with everything with Brown is entirely related to domestic politics and there is a european twist in the tail for the Tories.

On the World at One Hutton was absolutely adamant, as are Coffee Housers above, that four is the absolute minimum number of boats to ensure full cover. The weasel Fox, as usual no doubt under Clique instruction, was quoted as saying that reducing to three was sensible but only if coverage could be guaranteed (but, of course, it can't.)

And then came Pantsdown, against Trident renewal in principal, but confirming that while four was the minimum required number there was a way to reduce to three and here I quote, "watch this space, that way is to combine with the French force de frappe."

So there you have it - put our nuclear security in the hands of the French. Hands up all in favour! I thought not! But what a nice little European trap for Dave.

Watch this angle to the story develop during the Tory conference. Clarke will never be out of the BBC studios.

Peter

Journo naivete again. This is all grandstanding for a good story and you have all fallen for it. Brown is a dead man walking and nothing he says or does of any consequence at all now.

Peter

Obama screwed up over missile defence and now Brown's playing follow-my-leader. It's pathetic.

Disillusioned

In the early 1990's, the ability to use 3 boats as a basis for an effective deterrent was comprehensively rejected in Parliament. Nothing has changed to render this position redundant. Labour is playing politics with national security once again.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1992/mar/03/trident

Rhoda Klapp

If our deterrent capacity is not reduced, it's not much of a disarmament gesture. If it IS reduced, then the PM is lying.

And a personal note to David Blackburn, you really must apply a certain amount of critical, sceptical judgement before you hit enter. Or the sceptics here will eat you for lunch.

David Blackburn

Rhoda Klapp et al,

Whether Brown is being totally up front or not is at issue here - that's the nature of diplomacy. If this gesture, which will not impede our deterrent or our current projected strategic interests (and I'm yet to hear a defence chief, not even Sir Richard Dannatt or Sir Mike Jackson, say that it will, as opposed to former ministers who are apparently immune, under various analyses above, from having personal agendas or constituencies dominated by a BAE factory), gets Russia on side to stop nuclear proliferation and tackle the Iranian nuclear project then that is a very sharp piece of diplomacy on Brown's part. It's the first tactical masterstroke Labour have had in months; fortunately it's a national issue, not a party political one.

The fact that the Tories have articulated this same policy for some time vindicates my position - this is good diplomacy on a very sensitive topic. Even if Russia isn't brought on side; it's still a reasonable effort at making Britain a more secure place. Our security no longer depends on the ability to wipe out Eastern Europe: invoking the arguments of the Cold War and those formulated in its immediate aftermath is simply irrelevant.

Rhoda Klapp

David, nice reply (although wrong) but you didn't actually put up my comment, doubtless confusing my many fans.

TGF UKIP

And 50 years ago Master Blackburn would have been clad in duffle coat with CND badge and marching on Aldermaston.

Who needs to bother with the Staggers when we've got the Coffee House?

AAE

Surely a former defence chief is prevented by convention, if not by law, from expressing an opinion as to whether our nuclear capability remains effective or not? Your argument should speak for itself (feeling vindicated by the Tory position makes you seem weaker not stronger in my eyes) and should be based on the lessons so cruelly won in the past. When did any form of appeasement ever protect life? Was the Arab world, for example, a greater or lesser threat under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan? As for the Russians, since we are now dependent on them to keep the lights on, I suppose there's not much else we can do other than to adopt the abject position you admire.

El Sid

So am I the only person whose immediate reaction to Gordon's masterstroke of diplomacy was "Oh, so Vanguard's a write-off then?". But it seems that this is Gordon making a promise about how many subs we'll have in the 2020s - easy for him to do now. But it allows him to cut - sorry, apply negative % increases - to budgets today which gives him more room elsewhere - if nothing else it helps him absorb the overruns on the Astutes.

What people have been saying above about four subs is all true. However one thing would be different about the new boomers versus the 1980s design of the Vanguards, and that's the new life-long reactor cores which saves 2-3 multi-year reactor refits in the lifetime of each boat. So if cancelling the fourth boat has any basis in reality, it'll be because the cores in the refitted Vanguards and Astute are performing per spec. The Rolls Royce engineers bail out our politicians once again.

But I'd tend to assume that Gordon's just taken the decision with no reference to the engineers....

Incidentally, I'd love to know what the West are getting for all these concessions at the moment - are we really that desperate for Russia not to sell SA-20/21/23's to Iran?