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
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.
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
the possibility of nuclear war has haunted my whole life since Cuba
It's not like they need the money.
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.
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,
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?
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"