UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 11° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

You would be daft to scrap Trident, Hutton tells Brown

Former defence secretary says we don't know whether we will face a nuclear threat

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

John Hutton says the weapon system must be maintained

REUTERS

John Hutton says the weapon system must be maintained

John Hutton, the former defence secretary, has warned Gordon Brown that it would be "daft" to scrap the Trident nuclear weapons system, and predicted that his plans to scale it back will not save much money.

In an interview with The Independent, Mr Hutton appealed to the Prime Minister to resist pressure from within the Labour Party to kill off the £25bn programme to renew Britain's independent deterrent.

Mr Brown has announced his intention to reduce the number of submarines from four to three. Some senior Labour figures are urging him to go further by scrapping plans to modernise what critics describe as a "Cold War relic", with the savings divided between cutting the national debt and higher spending on equipment for frontline troops.

Mr Hutton said: "I don't think the answer to the current problems we face to get our public debt down should be done exclusively or largely at the expense of our armed forces. That would be a stupid thing to do. You cannot put all your eggs in one basket. The idea that we can say we don't need Trident because the only threat we face is from international terrorism is daft. Can you honestly say to the public that for the next 50 years we are not going to face the threat of nuclear blackmail or weapons of mass destruction? You can't.

"My strong view is that we are a long way from a position of even thinking about giving up our independent nuclear deterrent."

Mr Hutton is "not convinced" by Mr Brown's proposal to cut the number of submarines, saying that four subs are needed to ensure that one boat always remains at sea. Instead, he believes Britain should offer to reduce the number of warheads at global disarmament talks next spring.

He warned that reducing the number of boats by a quarter would not provide savings of anything like 25 per cent of £25bn, because the remaining three subs would need better propulsion systems and less frequent refuelling. "It is not a cheap solution; there is a price to be paid for upgrading," he said.

Mr Hutton's stance was influenced partly by his being MP for Barrow-in-Furness, where the new Trident submarines would be built. He said Britain should not relegate itself from the "premier league" in defence engineering, as once skills were lost they would never come back.

He quit the Cabinet in June because he had decided to leave Parliament at the next election and believed Mr Brown needed ministers who would stay the course up to and beyond the election. He wants to spend more time with his family and pursue his passion for writing military history books, with two about the First World War planned for next year. He admits that this writing is unlikely to "pay the bills" and he will need some private-sector work too.

He has started speaking at private dinners for the law firm Eversheds, but turned down a post with EDF Energy, the British arm of the French state-controlled nuclear energy company.

Mr Hutton dismissed speculation that he could have helped to force Mr Brown out of office if he had joined James Purnell, who resigned in the same week, in calling for the Prime Minister to stand down. "It did not cross my mind because it is not my view," he said.

Although some fellow Blairites want a change of leader before the election, Mr Hutton insists that Labour can still win under Mr Brown provided it sets out a forward-looking vision and maintains its commitment to public service. He admits that 12 years in government is tiring, but denies that Labour has run out of steam.

He said: "We have chosen our leader. Our responsibility is to support him. If we continue to bang on about that, we will do ourselves immense damage."

He wished Mr Brown's decision to send 500 more troops to Afghanistan had been announced earlier to give military chiefs more clarity, but strongly supports the Government's stance on the conflict. Admitting that British troops might need to remain in Afghanistan for 10 years, he said: "This is a defining struggle." If Britain were to pull out, the risk of terrorist acts in this country would increase, he said.

Mr Hutton concedes that people like David Cameron, but says they have not warmed to his party's policies, and insists that the Tories are woefully unprepared for government."This new-found enthusiasm for the softer side of politics Mr Cameron espouses is not shared by his parliamentary colleagues. They are rubbing their hands with glee at the idea of picking up where Margaret Thatcher left off in 1990," he said.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

or to put it another way....
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 11:45 pm (UTC)
.....x is flat broke and blind and, like me is not allowed to drive; so his friend says you would be mad not to buy more Rolls Royces to add to 3 that sit unused in your garage which you also cannot and will not ever use- hell why not buy 500 of the damned things- just in case; any inference that x is Gobbo is entirely unintentional and unjustified
Re: or to put it another way....
[info]gs_svejk wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 05:29 am (UTC)
Succintly put. I'm also surprised that a 'military historian' such as Mr Hutton would have such an undiluted fervour for Trident. I'm not surprised that an MP for Barrow-in-Furness such as Mr Hutton would, though..............
Re: or to put it another way....
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC)
there is an argument for one, just as a lurking threat and one as a spare during servicing; if we had none baddies would know for sure that they could get away with it, but having 3 would induce a lurking doubt - thus goes the theory which assumes baddies-i have a coz who is an expert in these things who persuaded me- but we don't have to be the first to use it and it's no way independent
the possibility of nuclear war has haunted my whole life since Cuba
You would be daft to scrap Trident
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 01:49 am (UTC)
Said the daft bloke.
It's not like they need the money.
How do Germany and Japan survive without Trident?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 02:11 am (UTC)
How can other countries survive without nuclear weapons?
Daft
[info]loftwork wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 03:14 am (UTC)
Is the fact that someone used to do something badly a necessary precondition for taking his advice? Or does that apply only to politicians? I'm looking forward to advice from ex-PM Brown on how to end boom'n'bust, from Tony Blur on how to be a peacemaker - oops, of course, he's already doing that. David Milliband on how to avoid being associated with torture and of course Baroness Scotland on how to fill in employment forms would both be very helpful.
The War Against Global Warming
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 04:07 am (UTC)
The point that John Hutton misses is that in the war against global warmingTrident missiles are pointing in the wrong direction. We have limited resources and we need all spare cash on getting a near-zero CO2 economy.
No longer Great
[info]bobnot wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 05:01 am (UTC)
We are no longer a great nation. We no longer have an empire. Though governments of either colour think and act as if we do. Any nuclear threat to us would be a threat to the free world. Superpowers would deal with it. As somebody wisely said the sole reason for our nuclear weapons is so we can retain our place in the UN security council. At what cost? A crumbling infrastructure? Just look at Germany or the Scandanavian countries and see what a lack of nuclear weapons and a Ministry of Offence can do.
Tridents
[info]camnai wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 06:39 am (UTC)
Who does the deterrent deter? Who is even remotely likely to launch a concerted nuclear attack on Britain, whether it has nuclear-strike capability or not? Terrorists might get a bomb, but Trident won't do anything to stop them. I think the £25 billion would be better spent on preparing for an attack from outside the Solar System. Or perhaps on Britain's conventional forces.
MP for the Barrow Shipyard
[info]jesamineklaxon wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 07:36 am (UTC)
I hope he's declared an interest.
We'll create monster we're afraid of...
[info]globalnomad73 wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
If we insist on keeping nuclear weapons, others will feel threatened and thus insist on getting/ renewing their own weapons... thus creating the monster we're afraid of. If we want to convince others that there's no need for such nasty weapons, maybe we should start by walking our talk. My 2p. In peace.
[info]sameen wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 10:08 am (UTC)
It sounds like its about status to maintain trident at its current level.
fear from the future
[info]leoardo wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 10:26 am (UTC)
trident tells us the behavior of britain in the future, which country or peoples are britian going to antagonise, rob, or conquer to warrent the protection of trident, but as america poodle yes so america should install a minder system, but how can britain be america poodles and be the spy at the table of europe, 100 billions sterling is a lot of taxpayers cash in any language.
Trident
[info]didijazztattoo wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 10:48 am (UTC)
Why does the UK believes to have the right to nuclear weapons and countries like Iran are not supposedly entitle to? Has Iran invaded any country in recent times? Has the UK?
Use cruise missiles instead
[info]00simian wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
In a cold war nuclear stand-off submarines are by far the most credible deterrent as the enemy never knows where the submarines, with their massive retaliatory capabilities, are and thereby does not encourage a "use them or lose them" strategy by either side. Now, however, assuming we want to have the weapons at all, facing down a 'rogue state' would only require a few bombs mounted on cruise missiles which could be launched from (multirole) aircraft, ships, subs or lorries. Having a dedicated and very expensive submarines is ridiculous.
You are only right as long as you are right.
[info]chouenlai wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 11:06 am (UTC)
All this nonsense about "Iran isn't so why should we be" is not even worth replying to. Similarly, Germany and Japan had to reasses the benefits of war some years back and have both fundermentally changed. The comments here are ok as long as you can all guarentee that some crazy gentleman does not take power somwhere important that can nuke us. Other wise you are right.
Trident
[info]juliandbsmith wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 11:48 am (UTC)

History tells us that countries regularly go into war mode led by ambition or religion, someone somewhere is always trying it on. So we need weapons for deterrence and to eliminate or subdue antagonism.

The only question remains, what strategy or choice of weapons is most effective and cost efficient in achieving these aims. From recent history it seems that going nuclear has been a very risky strategy but has been successful in keeping the big boys from having a go. However the minnows haven't stopped trying, it's our strategies there that need beefing up.

Nuclear weapons being a fact raises the stakes considerably, having antagonists religious enough to want your elimination raises it even further. I would suggest that a flexible mixture of alternatives would be the way forward, rather than having all our eggs in one basket.
[info]ebbi581 wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)
i wonder if mr hutton is financially tied to trident missile ????? does he and his cronies stand to benefit from such big contract???? the problem is that these guys are so corrupt that whatever they say is treated as a lie until proven otherwise.
Trident
[info]colinwood wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 12:10 pm (UTC)
Why don't British politicians put their brains in gear before opening their mouths?
The least they could do is study the 'facts'.

Which hypothetical nuclear power would be able to mount a nuclear attack on Britain (or Europe) before Trident's 'shelf-life' expires?

Why would any country want to use a valuable asset to destroy a second-world nation?

Trident is NOT an independant deterrant, as Britain cannot fire a nuclear warhead from these subs without US DOD / presidential permission.

The US would not allow nuclear attack on Europe for fear of being totally isolated.

Why don't we face the truth. Britain is not only not an independant power, it is a lapdog of the US which consistantly abuses the freindship,


Daft, Mr Hutton?
[info]buckpool wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 02:19 pm (UTC)
We can't scrap the missiles; they're only rented from America. And the subs are no use without the missiles so why bother building them for such a limited and ultimately useless purpose - in fact possibly the ultimate useless purpose.

Other than that Mr Hutton, we know Brown's daft - since it took you so long to find that out, what does it say for your braincell count?
Who are we likely to be at war with?
[info]geo32 wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 04:05 pm (UTC)
In the forseeable future we are battling against a small number of militant Muslims (now increasing in numbers thanks to Bush B liar and Co)

To pit Trident against hand held suface to air missiles, Kalashnikov rifles and roadside bombs and suicide bombers seems to me to be little over the top.

The same goes for the four submarines. Do the militant Muslims have a navy that we are unaware of?

As regards Iran they have three submarines and a military of some million or so troops. The chief Honcho, Ali Khamenei may not be on our christmas card list but I don`t think he would be so stupid as to attack the UK USA or even the hated Israelis knowing the retaliation he would be faced with

£25 billion could be spent more wisely on the more important things in the UK like hospitals, education, far better protection for our young warriors and care for the old codgers who helped make the UK what it is today

The government should have a new slogan " Let common sense prevail" Not "Screw the country for what we can while we can"
Big brother
[info]lasvegasrich wrote:
Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 05:05 pm (UTC)
I don't want to demean the UK, but the reality is that Great Britain has a big brother in the United States, and we have all sorts of navy ships and submarines, last I counted some 11 nuclear carriers, and many, many nuclear submarines. There mission, besides guarding our country, is to protect our allies in Europe, and around the world, including the UK. With our countries being on good terms with the Russians and the Chinese, the only real theat is terrorism. So the Trident program is not necessary. It's just a make work project.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date