Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell
independent: Tony Blair is facing a political backlash over his decision to order a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace the ageing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of pounds.
Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight against his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war.
Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs who object to nuclear weapons on principle. It includes senior figures in the military, who question whether this is the best way to spend a tight military budget.
A senior defence department source told The Independent that there was "a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the long-term role of the armed forces and whether a nuclear deterrent was still needed. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost.
An indication of the sums involved was revealed last week when the Defence Secretary, John Reid, released updated figures showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a £2bn budget for the next three years.
The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged £300m a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next year's costs will jump to £507m, rising still higher to about £1.5bn over the next two years.
Officially, the task of Aldermaston's scientists is to ensure that the Trident fleet is kept in working order. Their real task, according to military sources, is to make sure that the scientific know-how is in place to create a whole new generation of nuclear weapons as soon as a political decision has been made.
The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go ahead with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to exceed £10bn, but that he was delaying the announcement until after the general election.
In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen" to the views of MPs before making a final decision. However, both he and Mr Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will be given an opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue.
The "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair began at the end of last week when Mr Reid's parliamentary private secretary, Siobhain McDonagh, sent an e-mail to all Labour MPs inviting anyone concerned about nuclear weapons to meet the Defence Secretary in groups of six at a time.
Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years, a decision on whether to replace it has to be made much sooner, because of the long "lead-in" time needed to develop and test new weapons.
Mr Blair is thought to be determined to have the matter settled before he leaves 10 Downing Street. He believes that Britain owes it to the US to remain a member of the nuclear club. Read more
Read Tony Benn on Trident - Bush is the real threat: "I fear that if a US attack does take place [on Iran], the prime minister will give it his full support. And one of his reasons for doing so will be the same as in Iraq: namely the fear that, if he alienates Bush, Britain's so-called independent deterrent might be taken away. For, as I also learned when I was energy secretary, Britain is entirely dependent on the US for the supply of our Trident warheads and associated technology. They cannot even be targeted unless the US switches on its global satellite system."
Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight against his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war.
Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs who object to nuclear weapons on principle. It includes senior figures in the military, who question whether this is the best way to spend a tight military budget.
A senior defence department source told The Independent that there was "a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the long-term role of the armed forces and whether a nuclear deterrent was still needed. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost.
An indication of the sums involved was revealed last week when the Defence Secretary, John Reid, released updated figures showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a £2bn budget for the next three years.
The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged £300m a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next year's costs will jump to £507m, rising still higher to about £1.5bn over the next two years.
Officially, the task of Aldermaston's scientists is to ensure that the Trident fleet is kept in working order. Their real task, according to military sources, is to make sure that the scientific know-how is in place to create a whole new generation of nuclear weapons as soon as a political decision has been made.
The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go ahead with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to exceed £10bn, but that he was delaying the announcement until after the general election.
In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen" to the views of MPs before making a final decision. However, both he and Mr Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will be given an opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue.
The "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair began at the end of last week when Mr Reid's parliamentary private secretary, Siobhain McDonagh, sent an e-mail to all Labour MPs inviting anyone concerned about nuclear weapons to meet the Defence Secretary in groups of six at a time.
Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years, a decision on whether to replace it has to be made much sooner, because of the long "lead-in" time needed to develop and test new weapons.
Mr Blair is thought to be determined to have the matter settled before he leaves 10 Downing Street. He believes that Britain owes it to the US to remain a member of the nuclear club. Read more
Read Tony Benn on Trident - Bush is the real threat: "I fear that if a US attack does take place [on Iran], the prime minister will give it his full support. And one of his reasons for doing so will be the same as in Iraq: namely the fear that, if he alienates Bush, Britain's so-called independent deterrent might be taken away. For, as I also learned when I was energy secretary, Britain is entirely dependent on the US for the supply of our Trident warheads and associated technology. They cannot even be targeted unless the US switches on its global satellite system."
posted by exoplanet at 8:54 PM
<< Home