Caerphilly-based Plaid Cymru AM Lindsay Whittle has set out his opposition to the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme.
During a Plaid Cymru debate at the Senedd, the South Wales East AM, said that he did not see any strategic value in nuclear weapons.
Mr Whittle said: “It’s 2015, the world has moved on since these weapons even had a semi-plausible argument in their favour. The only point left to make in favour is a very flawed argument that Trident allows the UK to keep eating at the top table of world affairs, despite it being a second rate power in the world.”
Russia has increased it’s Defence spending by 33%! Putin has recently said that he thought about the option on putting his Nuclear Missiles on combat readiness at the time of the Crimea crisis!! And this idiot Whittle says he doesn’t want to see Trident renewed??!!
With loonies like Putin and ISIS around the U.K needs a nuclear deterant, the risk of a missile strike is a real one, what’s Mr Whittle going to do, take a pea shooter to a gun fight.
Totally agree Paul, I sleep better at night with a nuclear deterant. I would sleep ever better if we, as a nation upped our defence spending because it will only be a matter of time before Argentina re-invade the Falklands, and this time it will be for keeps!!! This is on top of the constant uninvited visits of the Tupolev Bombers!
We live in a world that is getting far more dangerous than when it was during the cold war.
Russia has increased it’s Defence spending by 33%! Putin has recently said that he thought about the option on putting his Nuclear Missiles on combat readiness at the time of the Crimea crisis!! And this idiot Whittle says he doesn’t want to see Trident renewed??!!
With loonies like Putin and ISIS around the U.K needs a nuclear deterant, the risk of a missile strike is a real one, what’s Mr Whittle going to do, take a pea shooter to a gun fight. Lindsey Whittle describes the U.K ( that does actually include Wales Mr Whiitle ) as second rate, so he probably couldn’t care less if some nutter fires a nuclear warhead at us.
Totally agree Paul, I sleep better at night with a nuclear deterant. I would sleep ever better if we, as a nation upped our defence spending because it will only be a matter of time before Argentina re-invade the Falklands, and this time it will be for keeps!!! This is on top of the constant uninvited visits of the Tupolev Bombers!
We live in a world that is getting far more dangerous than when it was during the cold war.
What has the Welsh Assembly got to do with defence? It’s not a devolved issue and I have yet to hear any AM speak who displays any knowledge of the military.
Personally I think that air launched and submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles are a better value for money solution if Britain retains these weapons. I would also like to see the submarine base moved from Scotland to Wales, along with 15,000 well paid jobs.
While air launched and land launched missiles are better value compared to a submarine based system the security of it is very sketchy. I do not believe it is wise to have a static nuclear stockpile at a known location in the UK. It would become a target for terrorism and also make the system redundant as it would be the first location any enemy would strike.
At least with Trident all we know is there is always a British submarine somewhere in the world’s oceans ready to launch nuclear weapons if required to do so. It gives a comforting feeling like static weapons would not.
Agreed, but if instead of the very expensive ballistic delivery systems we used shorter range cruise systems the advantages of submarines still hold true. The air launched weapons should be aircraft carrier based, using the new Queen Elizabeth class. We should operate at least three of these.
The problem with submarine launched ballistic missile systems is that the cost has been to the detriment of the navy, which has been cut back too far. Trident submarines can only be used for one purpose, nuclear deterrence. An aircraft carrier group can be used for protection of sea lanes, conventional strikes and other purposes right down to disaster relief.
I am sure that we all agree that use of nuclear weapons would be a terrible thing for the world. If we are to retain them for deterrence purposes the weapon system that carries them should be useful for tasks other than nuclear strike.
There’s a wise and very true saying ‘To keep the peace, prepare for war’.
I agree, and it is a very old saying, “Desidaeret Pacem, Praeparet Bellum” is, from long ago school memory, something like the original Roman version.
A more modern, but equally true, saying is, “Talk softly but carry a big stick.”
What has the Welsh Assembly got to do with defence? It’s not a devolved issue and I have yet to hear any AM speak who displays any knowledge of the military.
Personally I think that air launched and submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles are a better value for money solution if Britain retains these weapons. I would also like to see the submarine base moved from Scotland to Wales, along with 15,000 well paid jobs.
While air launched and land launched missiles are better value compared to a submarine based system the security of it is very sketchy. I do not believe it is wise to have a static nuclear stockpile at a known location in the UK. It would become a target for terrorism and also make the system redundant as it would be the first location any enemy would strike.
At least with Trident all we know is there is always a British submarine somewhere in the world’s oceans ready to launch nuclear weapons if required to do so. It gives a comforting feeling like static weapons would not.
Agreed, but if instead of the very expensive ballistic delivery systems we used shorter range cruise systems the advantages of submarines still hold true. The air launched weapons should be aircraft carrier based, using the new Queen Elizabeth class. We should operate at least three of these.
The problem with submarine launched ballistic missile systems is that the cost has been to the detriment of the navy, which has been cut back too far. Trident submarines can only be used for one purpose, nuclear deterrence. An aircraft carrier group can be used for protection of sea lanes, conventional strikes and other purposes right down to disaster relief.
I am sure that we all agree that use of nuclear weapons would be a terrible thing for the world. If we are to retain them for deterrence purposes the weapon system that carries them should be useful for tasks other than nuclear strike.
There’s a wise and very true saying ‘To keep the peace, prepare for war’.
I agree, and it is a very old saying, “Desidaeret Pacem, Praeparet Bellum” is, from long ago school memory, something like the original Roman version.
A more modern, but equally true, saying is, “Talk softly but carry a big stick.”
There is both a moral and economic case for cancelling Trident. Spending £100bn on nuclear weapons we never use shouldn’t even be up for consideration. All the talk of combatting ISIS with strikes from the sea is silly. Everybody knows Trident wouldn’t be deployed in such a way. Spending billions on defence to make the UK look tough just reduces the amount we can spend on vital services. Time for Trident to be scrapped.
You do know Trident would cost more to scrap than it would if you let it run its natural life?
The purpose of Trident is not to strike people with it, but threaten people with it. The Cold War only ended as the USSR realised they could not compete militarily with NATO. And the Strategic Defence Initiative sent shivers down their spine in case it produced a new technological breakthrough for the USA. The whole point of defence is to have a force with the most powerful weapon equalling the most powerful weapon held by potential enemies, i.e. nuclear weapons. Russia have recently threatened to return the world to a state similar to that experienced during the Cold War, Iran has nuclear ambitions despite any deal, the tinpot dictatorship of North Korea has such weapons, and so do various nations in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. The threat is not necessarily the nations themselves but the threat of terror groups using exploitation and bribery to obtain nuclear weapons.
In an ideal world no nation would have nuclear weapons but ridding yourself of the most powerful weapon known to man does not make you safer. It makes you more vulnerable to the people who want to destroy you regardless.
The same reasons are applied for Britain’s small stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. While Britain would never use these in warfare, to be able to have an antidote against the weapons you must have the weapon to experiment with.
Who’s talking of striking Isis from the sea? We should not be involved at all with Isis, any more than we should have been involved in Afghanistan. The people in these countries are conducting very bloody civil wars which have nothing to do with us.
Our military should be used to protect Britain and her vital interests, not used at the behest of America or EU commissioners. Our forces have been misused for years, a certain Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was very fond of sending our men and women into harms way for his own political purposes. Blair is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and has fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East. The Tories that came after him have proved almost as bad.
Britain needs a well equipped defence force, particularly a large Royal Navy, and does not need to be involved in costly, both in treasure and lives, foreign adventures.
Absolutely correct. We, the U.S. and all of Europe endured civil wars and we evolved from those wars. The Middle East and part of Africa are evolving in a similar way. Cruel as it may seem it is best to leave them at it.
Regarding having a strong defence, if France had such in 1937 the whole of modern history may be different.
I actually disagree here with the broad message. I believe Europe, mainly Britain, created the Middle East crisis in the 1800’s through Imperialism. While I am a general supporter of Imperialism and proud of Britain’s history, the end of Imperialism was rushed and poorly planned. As a result the borders of countries in the Middle East have been formed based on the ease of relative campaigns and not cultures.
In Eastern Europe where there is a history of a common bloc we find different ethnic groups are spread out over multiple countries and there are border disputes. The biggest example is Crimea. Belgium is a country only by legality with two autonomous regions sharing little culture. there are arguments over where their national Parliament should be. In the Middle East there a Kurds spread over multiple countries, and different branches of Muslims are spread over multiple regions. The cause of the conflict the Middle East always seems to have is not Western intervention in Afghanistan or a feeling of being left behind, but different ethnic groups having bloody battles over the running of a country.
The solution is to send in western forces to forcefully redraw the borders of countries in the Middle East until they are based on cultural groups. While such a strategy may appear to strengthen groups like ISIS who will be given their own dedicated country recognised by the UN, it will be false strength since a united enemy is easier to target with sanctions and military hardware. Sanctions and military hardware can then be expanded to topple governments you do not like.
The Middle East problems were indeed partly created by intervention by other countries, this goes back at least as far as Roman times when Inperial Rome brought in large numbers of Phillistines to live in Jewish lands. This was called by the Romans Syria Palestina, which became Palestine. Okay, so far so good, or bad; the ehtnic and religious mixtures have been unhelpful in developing peacful, prosperous countries.
If that is the cause of present wars I cannot see the wisdom in continually attempting to intervene, this is for the people who live in these countries to sort out. “Forcefully redrawing” the borders of Middle Eastern nations is likely to cause even more violence in Europe and America. Also it is very dangerous to topple governments that our own, very fallible, leaders do not like. Despots ruled in Iraq and Libya, their removal has led to major wars as competing ethnic and religious groups vie with eachother to get power.
No, I have seen enough evidence for me to believe that our interventions have not only made things worse but resulted in the deaths of many service men and women who joined with the understanding that their function was to protect Britain, not fight in somebody elses war.
In answer to the press release Paul was critical saying with ISIS around we need a nuclear deterrent. Clearly he had Trident in mind hence my comment. I was always oppose Trident on the grounds I set out. Rather than increasing the amount spent on defence we should be abolishing projects such as Trident. Reinvest billions spent to kill people to savings lives in nhs hospitals.
It would be lovely not to have wars Jamie, unfortunately war comes as naturally to humans as reproduction. Even very peaceful, non-aligned nations like Switzerland spend large amounts on defence ($5 Billion per annum) from a population of only 12% the size of Britain’s.
There is both a moral and economic case for cancelling Trident. Spending £100bn on nuclear weapons we never use shouldn’t even be up for consideration. All the talk of combatting ISIS with strikes from the sea is silly. Everybody knows Trident wouldn’t be deployed in such a way. Spending billions on defence to make the UK look tough just reduces the amount we can spend on vital services. Time for Trident to be scrapped.
You do know Trident would cost more to scrap than it would if you let it run its natural life?
The purpose of Trident is not to strike people with it, but threaten people with it. The Cold War only ended as the USSR realised they could not compete militarily with NATO. And the Strategic Defence Initiative sent shivers down their spine in case it produced a new technological breakthrough for the USA. The whole point of defence is to have a force with the most powerful weapon equalling the most powerful weapon held by potential enemies, i.e. nuclear weapons. Russia have recently threatened to return the world to a state similar to that experienced during the Cold War, Iran has nuclear ambitions despite any deal, the tinpot dictatorship of North Korea has such weapons, and so do various nations in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. The threat is not necessarily the nations themselves but the threat of terror groups using exploitation and bribery to obtain nuclear weapons.
In an ideal world no nation would have nuclear weapons but ridding yourself of the most powerful weapon known to man does not make you safer. It makes you more vulnerable to the people who want to destroy you regardless.
The same reasons are applied to Britain’s small stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. While Britain would never use these in warfare, to be able to have an antidote against the weapons you must have the weapon to experiment with.
Who’s talking of striking Isis from the sea? We should not be involved at all with Isis, any more than we should have been involved in Afghanistan. The people in these countries are conducting very bloody civil wars which have nothing to do with us.
Our military should be used to protect Britain and her vital interests, not used at the behest of America or EU commissioners. Our forces have been misused for years, a certain Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was very fond of sending our men and women into harms way for his own political purposes. Blair is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and has fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East. The Tories that came after him have proved almost as bad.
Britain needs a well equipped defence force, particularly a large Royal Navy, and does not need to be involved in costly, both in treasure and lives, foreign adventures.
Absolutely correct. We, the U.S. and all of Europe endured civil wars and we evolved from those wars. The Middle East and part of Africa are evolving in a similar way. Cruel as it may seem it is best to leave them at it.
Regarding having a strong defence, if France had such in 1937 the whole of modern history may be different.
I actually disagree here with the broad message. I believe Europe, mainly Britain, created the Middle East crisis in the 1800’s through Imperialism. While I am a general supporter of Imperialism and proud of Britain’s history, the end of Imperialism was rushed and poorly planned. As a result the borders of countries in the Middle East have been formed based on the ease of relative campaigns and not cultures.
In Eastern Europe where there is a history of a common bloc we find different ethnic groups are spread out over multiple countries and there are border disputes. The biggest example is Crimea. Belgium is a country only by legality with two autonomous regions sharing little culture. there are arguments over where their national Parliament should be. In the Middle East there a Kurds spread over multiple countries, and different branches of Muslims are spread over multiple regions. The cause of the conflict the Middle East always seems to have is not Western intervention in Afghanistan or a feeling of being left behind, but different ethnic groups having bloody battles over the running of a country.
The solution is to send in western forces to forcefully redraw the borders of countries in the Middle East until they are based on cultural groups. While such a strategy may appear to strengthen groups like ISIS who will be given their own dedicated country recognised by the UN, it will be false strength since a united enemy is easier to target with sanctions and military hardware. Sanctions and military hardware can then be expanded to topple governments you do not like.
The Middle East problems were indeed partly created by intervention by other countries, this goes back at least as far as Roman times when Inperial Rome brought in large numbers of Phillistines to live in Jewish lands. This was called by the Romans Syria Palestina, which became Palestine. Okay, so far so good, or bad; the ehtnic and religious mixtures have been unhelpful in developing peacful, prosperous countries.
If that is the cause of present wars I cannot see the wisdom in continually attempting to intervene, this is for the people who live in these countries to sort out. “Forcefully redrawing” the borders of Middle Eastern nations is likely to cause even more violence in Europe and America. Also it is very dangerous to topple governments that our own, very fallible, leaders do not like. Despots ruled in Iraq and Libya, their removal has led to major wars as competing ethnic and religious groups vie with eachother to get power.
No, I have seen enough evidence for me to believe that our interventions have not only made things worse but resulted in the deaths of many service men and women who joined with the understanding that their function was to protect Britain, not fight in somebody elses war.
In answer to the press release Paul was critical saying with ISIS around we need a nuclear deterrent. Clearly he had Trident in mind hence my comment. I was always oppose Trident on the grounds I set out. Rather than increasing the amount spent on defence we should be abolishing projects such as Trident. Reinvest billions spent to kill people to savings lives in nhs hospitals.
It would be lovely not to have wars Jamie, unfortunately war comes as naturally to humans as reproduction. Even very peaceful, non-aligned nations like Switzerland spend large amounts on defence ($5 Billion per annum) from a population of only 12% the size of Britain’s.
Trident is insurance, you pay through the teeth for it in the hope that you never have to use it. But it’s also far more than that, at no point do I wish to divulge to our international friends that our guard is down at any time. We are facing many forms of security threats at the moment but that dosent mean we wouldn’t or are not facing aggression on the level that a nuclear deterrent would warrant. The moment trident were scrapped our diplomats would be at a disadvantage when brokering for peace. Why would our potential enemy take us seriously if he knows full well that we have no aces up our sleeve. Particularly if our friends with such capacities were incapacitated (physically/politically), unable or unwilling to help.
Then it’s all to late and it would take years of effort and money we had already spent to get it back again. But we wouldn’t be able to as our potential enemy could find many avenues to pressure us not to or prevent us from re-arming. We can all imagine good scenarios should we get rid of our big guns but the reverse is also quite possible which is preventable with renewal whilst the former is not guaranteed.
You make some good points Pete, my own view is that when countries like North Korea and Pakistan have nuclear capability Britain should have these weapons too. I am not so sure about Trident as every country knows that this is only usable with the permission of the USA, which removes a lot of the deterrent threat. In past times we had a genuinely independent nuclear capibility as the USA refused to share the technology with Britain and we were forced to develop our own nuclear weapons.
Ironically it was the most socialist government this country has ever known, that of Clem Attlee, that funded and pushed through this programme. In those days the RAF were charged with the delivery of nuclear weapons.
In the modern world we can absolutely not threaten countries such as Russia or China with our weapons, they are there to deter the North Koreas and Irans of this world. To this end I would like to see the Royal Navy be responsible for nuclear arms, as is the case now, but without the cost to its conventional strength the navy currently suffers. I would go for submarine launched, short range missiles and stand off weapons delivered by the Fleet Air Arm from Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
I don’t really have any knowledge of the how’s or where of various capabilities I just fully understand that there is likely downside to not having these weapons. The scenario where we get rid of them and it all turns out great is unlikely. If Scotland dosent want it anymore then I say bring it to Wales I would happily move myself and family to say somewhere like Pembroke dock or another likely port (if these are likely) to work there on such a project. Their loss our gain I say.
Quite right! The independent claim is very shaky considering the missiles and warheads not loaded on a submarine are pooled with the USA at a base in Georgia and a missile at random is selected to be loaded onto the submarines of any nation.
I would not say it is beyond the technical capabilities of engineers in the military to reengineer things to allow the missiles to be fired without the USA giving the word, and further allowing the warheads to be explode, but I do doubt the time or resources are available.
Yes you are right Dean, we used to get the same problem when I was a control technician and my company had bought kit without access to the source code. We were unable to alter, or even look at, the underlying programme. It would take a Bletchley Park type effort to see how this US system actually works.
Trident is insurance, you pay through the teeth for it in the hope that you never have to use it. But it’s also far more than that, at no point do I wish to divulge to our international friends that our guard is down at any time. We are facing many forms of security threats at the moment but that dosent mean we wouldn’t or are not facing aggression on the level that a nuclear deterrent would warrant. The moment trident were scrapped our diplomats would be at a disadvantage when brokering for peace. Why would our potential enemy take us seriously if he knows full well that we have no aces up our sleeve. Particularly if our friends with such capacities were incapacitated (physically/politically), unable or unwilling to help.
Then it’s all to late and it would take years of effort and money we had already spent to get it back again. But we wouldn’t be able to as our potential enemy could find many avenues to pressure us not to or prevent us from re-arming. We can all imagine good scenarios should we get rid of our big guns but the reverse is also quite possible which is preventable with renewal whilst the former is not guaranteed.
You make some good points Pete, my own view is that when countries like North Korea and Pakistan have nuclear capability Britain should have these weapons too. I am not so sure about Trident as every country knows that this is only usable with the permission of the USA, which removes a lot of the deterrent threat. In past times we had a genuinely independent nuclear capibility as the USA refused to share the technology with Britain and we were forced to develop our own nuclear weapons.
Ironically it was the most socialist government this country has ever known, that of Clem Attlee, that funded and pushed through this programme. In those days the RAF were charged with the delivery of nuclear weapons.
In the modern world we can absolutely not threaten countries such as Russia or China with our weapons, they are there to deter the North Koreas and Irans of this world. To this end I would like to see the Royal Navy be responsible for nuclear arms, as is the case now, but without the cost to its conventional strength the navy currently suffers. I would go for submarine launched, short range missiles and stand off weapons delivered by the Fleet Air Arm from Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
I don’t really have any knowledge of the how’s or where of various capabilities I just fully understand that there is likely downside to not having these weapons. The scenario where we get rid of them and it all turns out great is unlikely. If Scotland dosent want it anymore then I say bring it to Wales I would happily move myself and family to say somewhere like Pembroke dock or another likely port (if these are likely) to work there on such a project. Their loss our gain I say.
I disagree one the replacement option. For a nuclear deterrent to be effective it needs to be capable of striking any place on Earth. As some places are just under 1650 miles away from the nearest coastline, and even the most simplistic of enemies mining their coasts, the range needs to be at least 2000 miles. Airstrikes could reach these places but we do not have a bomber capable of taking off from QE carriers with a range of 1650 miles. In addition to this the chances of being discovered on radar and being shot down before reaching the target is too great. These places 1650 miles from the sea and not remote places with no life, but thriving cities in developing countries such as China.
Quite right! The independent claim is very shaky considering the missiles and warheads not loaded on a submarine are pooled with the USA at a base in Georgia and a missile at random is selected to be loaded onto the submarines of any nation.
I would not say it is beyond the technical capabilities of engineers in the military to reengineer things to allow the missiles to be fired without the USA giving the word, and further allowing the warheads to be explode, but I do doubt the time or resources are available.
Yes you are right Dean, we used to get the same problem when I was a control technician and my company had bought kit without access to the source code. We were unable to alter, or even look at, the underlying programme. It would take a Bletchley Park type effort to see how this US system actually works.