Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Great Britain: Brown £20bn nuke pledge (Promises massive new nuke arsenal, upgrade)
The Sun (U.K.) ^ | June 22, 2006 | GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON

Posted on 06/22/2006 2:38:50 AM PDT by Stoat

Brown £20bn nuke pledge

Big task ... Brown
Brown ... sensational promise
 
 

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON


Political Editor

 GORDON Brown sensationally vowed last night to protect future generations with a new £20billion nuclear arsenal.

The Chancellor pledged to replace our ageing Trident deterrent when he is Premier — keeping Britain in the world “nuclear club”.

His pledge will DELIGHT the US government, the Armed Forces and the defence industry.

It will SILENCE Labour’s left, who believe he will return to old-style socialism if he is PM. And it will trigger a FURIOUS row with the ban-the-bomb brigade.

Mr Brown told the City in his annual Mansion House speech: “We will demonstrate in protecting our security that we are strong in defence, in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.

“In an insecure world we must always have the strength to take necessary long-term decisions for stability and security.”

The £20billion move will mean a new generation of submarines, warheads and missiles.

Officially, Tony Blair must make the decision on replacing the Trident armoury. The PM is already signed up to a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Left wingers and union bosses were hoping Mr Brown would reverse the move when he enters No 10 — but the decision must be taken this year.

It marks the beginning of the transition of power from Mr Blair to Mr Brown.

The Chancellor’s decision to come out in favour last night was a crystal clear signal of how he hopes to govern.

Paul Murphy of the Commons security and intelligence committee praised Mr Brown, saying: “I welcome his commitment to renew our independent nuclear deterrent.

“Protecting national security is the first duty of any government, and this responsibility will be safe in Gordon’s hands.”

Trident has guaranteed Britain’s security for 30 years, but the ageing fleet of submarines, missiles and warheads need to be replaced or axed altogether.

New submarines will each cost £1.5billion and take up to 14 years to develop and build.

Scientists are developing a new “Son of Trident” atomic warhead at Aldermaston, Berks.

Experts say a replacement is vital if Britain is to remain a major power. Mr Brown vowed France cannot be the only EU power with nuclear weapons. The move will safeguard our interests until at least 2050.

  • NORTH
Korea hinted yesterday it would halt plans to test a long-range missile if the US agreed to talks.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: britain; england; gordonbrown; greatbritain; nucleardeterrent; nukes; uk; unitedkingdom
 

 

Brown criticised over deterrent

Trident nuclear submarine
Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024

 
Chancellor Gordon Brown has come under fire after signalling that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent system.

The submarine-based Trident missile system needs replacing by 2024. A replacement could cost up to £25bn.

Mr Brown, seen as the most likely next prime minister, signalled his backing in a setpiece City speech on Wednesday.

But a number of Labour MPs have already spoken out against the plan. A decision is expected to be taken within a year.

Former Tory foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind branded Mr Brown's remarks "shabby".

He accused Mr Brown of trying to stifle a debate within the Labour Party and said: "It is not the responsibility of the chancellor in an after dinner speech to announce nuclear policy."

'Long term decision'

The issue of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent has always been a controversial one, especially within the Labour Party, which opposed Margaret Thatcher's decision to commission Trident in the 1980s.

In his Mansion House speech in the City of London, Mr Brown said Britain would show a "national purpose" in protecting its security.

"Strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent," he said.

"In an insecure world we must and we will always have the strength to take all necessary long term decisions to ensure both stability and security."

When we face no nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race
 
Kate Hudson
Chairwoman, CND

 

It is thought Mr Brown wants anti-nuclear campaigners to know he is just as committed to replacing Trident as Tony Blair.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown's words would take the heat off the prime minister, who could have produced "uproar" if he had made the same announcement.

A decision on Trident is expected to be taken in months rather than years.

Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said she was hoping for a full public and Parliamentary debate on the issue.

"Our feeling is statements like this from someone as significant as Gordon Brown pre-empts that debate," she said.

Statesman's spin?

"At this point, when we face no nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race," she said.

Labour MP Ian Gibson, an opponent of Trident, said many young Labour backbenchers had been weaned on CND and had not lost those early political views.

"So it may not be as easy [to agree to replace Trident] as people might think," he told BBC News 24.

NUCLEAR BRITAIN
October 1952 Britain tests nuclear weapon
May 1957 First UK hydrogen bomb detonated
1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement signed allowing the sharing of nuclear techology
1968 British submarine armed with US-built Polaris missiles goes on patrol for the first time
November 1968 UK ratifies nuclear non-proliferation treaty
1982 Cruise missiles deployed in UK
1993 Trident submarine-based nuclear missile programme comes into use replacing Polaris
Late 2006/ early 2007 Cabinet decision on replacing Trident expected
Around 2010 work on new scheme to replace Trident is expected to begin
2024 Britain's Trident submarines due to be decommissioned
Another Labour backbencher, Gordon Prentice, asked: "How are we going to persuade other countries not to go for nuclear weapons when we are spending millions of pounds not disarming but upgrading our nuclear weapons?"

Keith Sonnet, deputy general secretary of Unison, the country's biggest trade union, also urged Mr Brown to think again.

The Conservatives accused Mr Brown of "spin" designed to make him look statesmanlike when he was in fact just repeating Labour's 2005 manifesto.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "Gordon Brown's posturing on Trident is smothering the national debate that this government promised to the British people."

Many Labour MPs have been calling for there to be a full Commons debate and vote before any decision to replace Trident, but Tony Blair, while promising the "fullest possible debate", has stopped short of promising a vote.

Asked about calls for MPs to be given a say, Defence Secretary Des Browne said: "The fact that the chancellor is speaking about it in the context of a range of other policy issues is an indication of how transparent we are about this."

 

 

 
SEE ALSO
Q&A: Trident replacement
14 Mar 06 |  Politics
Fact file: Trident missile
17 Nov 05 |  UK
New deterrent 'being considered'
13 Mar 06 |  Politics
Blair promises deterrent 'debate'
07 Feb 06 |  Politics
Trident to get £1bn boost - Reid
19 Jul 05 |  Politics
Scrap UK nuclear arms - Portillo
19 Jun 05 |  Politics

 
RELATED INTERNET LINKS
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

 

1 posted on 06/22/2006 2:38:53 AM PDT by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Biography of Gordon Brown

Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer

 

  Photograph of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Gordon Brown was appointed as Chancellor of the Exchequer on 2 May 1997. He has been the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath since 2005 and was the MP for Dunfermline East from 1983 to 2005.  He was Opposition spokesperson on Treasury and Economic Affairs (Shadow Chancellor) from 1992.

Mr Brown was born in 1951 and educated at Kirkcaldy High School and Edinburgh University where he gained 1st Class Honours and then a Doctorate. He was Rector of Edinburgh University and Chairman of the University Court between 1972 and 1975. From 1976 to 1980, Mr Brown lectured at Edinburgh University and then Caledonian University before taking up a post at Scottish TV (1980 - 1983).

After becoming an MP, Mr Brown was the Chair of the Labour Party Scottish Council (1983 - 1984). Before becoming Shadow Chancellor he held two other senior posts on the Opposition front bench - Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1987 - 1989) and Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary (1989 -1992).

Mr Brown has had a number of works published including Maxton, The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution and Where There is Greed. He has edited a number of books including John Smith: Life and Soul of the Party and Values, Visions and Voices.

Outside of work, Mr Brown`s interests include football, tennis and film.

Internal links

Chancellor´s speeches


2 posted on 06/22/2006 2:39:20 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Labour's Treasury Chancellor George Brown sounds like Australia's John Howard and Canada's Stephen Harper. Labour's best chance of keeping power is to outflank the Tories on national security. You won't hear that kind of language from a Democrat here at home. A commitment to keep the country strong and to win.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

3 posted on 06/22/2006 2:43:54 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
When we face no nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race
 
Kate Hudson
Chairwoman, CND

 

"Wondering if Kate Hudson has perhaps not heard of North Korea, China,  and others who many consider to already constitute a nuclear threat to the West"

4 posted on 06/22/2006 2:44:11 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
You won't hear that kind of language from a Democrat here at home.

Perfectly true, of course (except from those who have been effectively outcast from the Dems such as Lieberman)

How can anyone be a Democrat and look themselves in the mirror anymore?

5 posted on 06/22/2006 2:47:11 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Exactly. In view of Iran's determination to acquire bomb and the possibility terrorists might get it, it would be foolhardy in the extreme for the UK to strip itself bare in a dangerous world. The island nation can no longer rely on the Royal Navy or the Dominions of the British Empire to come to its aid. It simply must have a modernized arsenal to ward off any conceivable threat. George Brown should run on a platform of peace through strength. He can make his own imprint as Prime Minister by reminding Britons what damage appeasement did to their country. Its time to stand tall.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

6 posted on 06/22/2006 2:49:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
The Democrats are simply not credible on national security. They project an image of spinelessness in the face of danger. Added to that, they loathe our military and are unprepared to shoulder the burdens of defending our way of life. Contrast the incoming Labour leader's resolve with Democrats' demand we need to hightail it out of Iraq. As long as the Democrats are the way are, they'll be a perpetual minority like the English Tories. You have to more than stand against something: you have to stand up for your country. I have yet to see a Democrat congratulate America for the good things she has done of late.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

7 posted on 06/22/2006 2:55:03 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Well stated, and I do believe that despite the noise made by Great Britain's heads-in-the-sand Left, most Britons understand their unique position in the world (geographically, culturally and economically) and understand also that we of the West stand on the precipice of history, where backing down to international thugs and terrorists will only result in our own extinction. Our British Friends are not stupid, and I am confident that they will do the right thing despite the Leftist hysterics among them.


8 posted on 06/22/2006 2:59:54 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I have yet to see a Democrat congratulate America for the good things she has done of late.

Stating such an obvious, gracious and patriotic truth is rendered impossible because they are consumed with hatred for our President.  Everything they say and do is a political calculation designed to hurt or discredit him....America has become irrelevant to them.

9 posted on 06/22/2006 3:06:34 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
I don't think China is any real military threat. China is on a role now ..economic growth, massive internal consumer market and population to control and now they are trading very well in Africa (after most of the world turned thier backs on the Africans). I just don't see China wanting any sort of military adventure that would end the world trade cycle that benifits them so much.
As for North Korea I expect the Chinese won't want them to rock the boat and will slap them down if 'push comes comes to shove'.
I'm not suggesting no defence just that the enemy has changed. We don't need Trident anymore and the money would be better spent on a massive counter terrorist operation and the expansion of 'special forces' to win the real war on terrorism thats going on now.
10 posted on 06/22/2006 3:23:25 AM PDT by Brit1 ( Not by Strength by Guile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brit1

I hope that you're right about China; it's just that whenever they start sabre-rattling particularly in regards to the occasional Taiwan flare-ups, it causes me some concern....they care an awful lot about not "losing face" on the world stage as well as at home and Taiwan causes them great discomfort.
As the Trident systems are replaced with newer platforms I'm guessing that the new designs will reflect the changes in the world, including the realities of the war on terror. However, I think that the current North Korean situation illustrates what a great thing it is for us (and our British Friends) to be able to quickly park an invisible armada off the coast, sitting comfortably on or near the sea floor, that has the capability of instantaneously wiping out any serious threat to our safety or the world's economic well-being.

Such safeguards truly help me to sleep better at night and I would much rather know that my tax dollars are paying for a big black submarine rather than some social program that will only exacerbate the problems that it is designed to correct.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 3:38:41 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Re your last paragraph I'm not suggesting the money should be used for anything else but defence .I don't think its targetted well
.I don't see a nuclear submarine fleet having any bearing on preventing an appalling incident like 9/11 .All the world should understand that any sort of nuke exchange anywhere on the planet would be the end and I'm not doom monggering look at the economic slowdown after 9/11` and the effect of a small accident (relative to a nuclear war ) at a Russian power station achieved.
12 posted on 06/22/2006 4:20:17 AM PDT by Brit1 ( Not by Strength by Guile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brit1

I think we (Britain) must retain a nuclear right-of-reply, preferably a submarine and/or multi-pronged one. In today's world there is almost no chance of a global thermonuclear war, but there is every chance of a limited exchange. We absolutely must cover that possibility.

However, as long as we British retain the capability to destroy a fifth of the worlds population we are doing our part in preventing nuclear war - we need to maintain and expand out conventional capability. Soldiers, tanks, aircraft carriers (etc) are not going out of date any time soon: All are needed if Britain is to do her part in maintaining the Anglosphere's hold on world culture.


13 posted on 06/22/2006 5:21:18 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

'The island nation can no longer rely on the Royal Navy'

Oh yes we can, it's the Royal Navy that has all our nukes!


14 posted on 06/22/2006 5:21:42 AM PDT by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Hear, hear!

There are only a handful of namby-pamby muesli sandal wearing lefties these days it seems. When I was more politically active than I am now back in the 80's the place was full of the dozy bastards. Dying breed thank God.


15 posted on 06/22/2006 5:25:44 AM PDT by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

"However, as long as we British retain the capability to destroy a fifth of the worlds population"

Is that what our 200 warheads are capable of?


16 posted on 06/23/2006 2:42:20 AM PDT by Mac1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson