Among the choicer
difficulties in the business of the Scots being independent there is the matter
of the submarines at Faslane and their Trident missiles.
As well as being a
delicate question politically, it involves the USA, no doubt Brussels and Lady
Ashton will be anxious to offer their expert advice and Russia will have an
interest.
A trenchant opinion on this today is
from Simon Jenkins in The Guardian, where I find myself in the rare position of
agreeing with something in that journal.
In effect he raises the question of whether the UK should continue with
Trident in an age of drones and other means of delivery.
There is then the larger
question of whether it makes sense for the UK to be armed with very expensive
nuclear weapons and all that is involved at the expense of every other arm of
the service, in each of which we are no longer a major power. Given the potential troubles we are in a weak
position.
If the Scots vote
"Yes" then the remaining UK government should consider immediately leaving
Faslane to the Scots for them to negotiate and determine with the USA what the
future use of that base might be.
The vessels and hardware would
be handed over to the USA on whom we depend for them and UK personnel withdrawn
at the earliest opportunity. The cost
savings to the remaining UK would be huge and allow it better choices in
defence policy.
So, despite being a hawk by nature, for once I am with the anti-nuclear brigade and the SNP.
So, despite being a hawk by nature, for once I am with the anti-nuclear brigade and the SNP.
They may not even be very effective any longer, now outdated technology, just very profitable for certain people.
ReplyDeleteSee this story in Veterans Today, Mini nukes
'Now we have junk Trident subs with no replacement warheads that work. Why? We had to withdrawal the M-1 tank due to improvements in RPG technology. The F-22 was assigned to national guard units, just like the F-102 was. Why? Because it doesn’t work. '