The Intelligence2 Debate

24 November 2007

The motion: Britain Doesn’t Need Trident

The opposition was led by Sir Michael Quinlan, former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence. The lovable mandarin elaborated his urbane arguments in a rapid, fluting delivery. The £20 billion cost of replacing Trident is cheap compared with what the French are paying, he said. We build the subs and missiles ourselves. We import the warheads from America. The French version is entirely homemade and costs them four times as much. Applying himself to the unilateralist argument he made the unanswerable point that ‘eliminating nuclear weapons does not eliminate the problem of nuclear weapons’. To want nukes is not the same as liking them. They’re ghastly things but they have benefits. Since Hiroshima, he pointed out, there have been no conflicts between major world powers. That’s not an accident. Nuclear weapons have liberated humanity from large-scale wars.

Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian columnist and an amusingly relaxed presence in the chair, introduced Angus Robertson of the SNP with a dig. ‘He’s been called the hardest working MP in Westminster — although his critics would say that’s not saying much.’ Robertson replied ironically. ‘Thank you for those kind words, Jonathan. You’ll find the Guardian doesn’t sell much in Scotland.’ Scotland was Robertson’s theme. Trident is a huge issue there because ‘Scotland has the highest mega-tonnage of offensive nuclear capability in the world.’ Trident’s budget should be spent on the regular army, he suggested, producing a fistful of newspaper headlines that ascribed the sufferings of soldiers, especially Scottish soldiers, to shortfalls in defence funding. He tore into the government’s figures and alleged that the £20 billion covers only the physical replacement of Trident. Add the running costs of the present system and the maintenance of the new submarine fleet, and the fund swells like an obese teenager to £100 billion. Democracy cries out against Trident, he told us. A majority of Scots would scrap it. And he prophesied that Trident would do for Labour in Scotland what the poll tax had done for the Tories — obliterate them for a generation. A charming, powerful speech.

Oliver Kamm, a journalist and financier, shunned the lectern and trotted to the front of the auditorium, like a trendy vicar but a lot more effective. Glass of water in hand, he spoke with great fluency, and without notes, arguing that Britain’s deterrent during the cold war had strengthened Nato by ensuring ‘a second centre of decision-making in Europe’. Britain’s bomb had stopped Russia from contemplating a limited-theatre nuclear attack. Arguing that the first duty of defence planning is ‘to anticipate remote contingencies’, he cited the Falklands war and Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait as examples of ‘contingencies’ that had seemed ‘remote’ only weeks before they materialised. ‘Trident is our insurance premium,’ he finished. ‘Let’s keep it.’

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Lloyd Evans | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

me

November 23rd, 2007 10:41pm Report this comment

it is incorrect than we import warheads from the us.the warheads are british.the trident missiles are american build and are shared between the british and US ssbn

Post comment