20:03
Tieng Anh Vui
The findings of a review set up to help the coalition resolve its differences over replacing the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent are due to be published.
The Liberal Democrats favour cutting the number of Vanguard missile-carrying submarines, but the Conservatives say this would be "reckless".
The review has examined alternative options to like-for-like replacement.
Its findings come as a group of former defence secretaries and military chiefs said Trident should not be downgraded.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, former Conservative defence secretaries Liam Fox and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Labour's Bob Ainsworth, Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Robertson, together with ex-chiefs of defence staff Lord Boyce and Lord Stirrup, set out their support for like-for-like replacement by saying the government should not "take risks with our security" by downgrading Trident in an "uncertain world".
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will present the findings of Lib Dem cabinet minister Danny Alexander's Trident Alternatives Review at 11:00 BST.
MPs will debate them on Wednesday.
'No conclusions'
The UK has had a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, with at least one submarine on patrol at any given time, for more than 40 years and has used the Trident system since the early 1980s.
Analysis
The Trident Alternatives Review was never going to settle the debate about the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
The review asked three key questions. The first two were: Are there credible alternatives to a submarine-based deterrent? Are there credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal - such as modifying the Astute submarines?
In both cases the answer appears to be no. Basing nuclear missile silos on land was never really a starter. Too controversial and too easy to target. And the review appears to conclude that modifying the Astute submarines to carry nuclear cruise missiles would be both more expensive and less effective.
The one hope for the Liberal Democrats is in the last question: Are there alternative nuclear postures, such as a non-continuous at-sea deterrent?
For the Conservatives the answer is still no. Philip Hammond says it would be like having a part time deterrent. He wants a like-for-like replacement.
But the Liberal Democrats will argue you could save billions of pounds by having two submarines instead of four. There will be clear blue water between the two parties before the next election.
The current four-submarine fleet will reach the end of its lifespan in the 2020s.
A final decision on whether to renew it has been delayed until 2016 amid differences between the coalition partners.
The review results from a compromise reached by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the 2010 coalition agreement.
The Conservatives, who support like-for-like renewal, and the Lib Dems, who have long been sceptical, agreed to the value-for-money review to look into other options, including alternative delivery systems and a slimmed-down version of the current system.
But BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale says the review does not draw conclusions nor make specific recommendations and will sharpen the divide between the parties.
Critics have questioned whether the UK can continue to pay for Trident in its current form. The government estimates renewal costs will be between £15bn and £20bn but anti-nuclear campaigners say the figure will be much higher.
The Ministry of Defence says the current cost of operating the Trident fleet is about 5% of the annual £34bn defence budget.
Mr Hammond, a Conservative, has said all possible alternatives to Trident would be "less capable, less credible and more expensive" and would not provide the same "level of protection" from external aggression.
'Nuclear ladder'
But Lib Dem former defence minister Nick Harvey told the BBC it was time to "take some steps down the nuclear ladder" following the end of the Cold War.
TRIDENT TIMELINE
- 2007: MPs approve plans for renewal in Commons vote. "Concept phase" launched to assess future submarine designs and consider value for money of project
- 2010: Defence review decides to delay final decision on renewal to 2016
- 2011: "Initial Gate" procurement phase to begin. Some building materials and components of nuclear propulsion system to be purchased over five years
- 2016: "Main Gate" decision due to be taken. Submarine design and missile component contracts to be finalised
- 2028: First replacement submarine to be delivered
The review will not have any direct impact on the policy of the coalition government, which affirmed its commitment to Trident in its programme for government in 2010.
But it will inform debate on future spending priorities and on Lib Dem policy in the run-up to the next election.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament said cancelling Trident would bring "strategic and economic benefits" and for the government not to consider this seriously would be an "abdication of responsibility".
Publishing an alternative review, which it says has the backing of a number of Lib Dem and Labour MPs, its general secretary Kate Hudson said not proceeding could save £100bn and give the UK "moral leadership" in global disarmament talks.
The letter from the former defence secretaries and defence chiefs warns the UK cannot "foresee what threats will develop over the next 30 years. Reducing our submarine-based Trident capability would weaken our national security for the sake of a very small fraction of the defence budget".
They say: "It is our view that if Britain is to remain a leading global power with strong defences, nothing less than a continuous-at-sea deterrent will do."
Đăng ký: Tieng Anh Vui
Posted in: 
0 comments:
Post a Comment