June 22, 2006


Britain to buy new nuclear deterrent (Philip Webster and Michael Evans, 6/22/056, Times of London)

BRITAIN is to have a new generation of nuclear submarines and missiles after a promise by Gordon Brown yesterday to replace the Trident deterrent if and when he becomes Prime Minister.

The Chancellor, widely expected to take over from Tony Blair next year, faced a furious response from the Left after pledging to retain the nuclear capability in this Parliament and “in the long-term”. But the Chancellor was told that he was upsetting his natural allies in the party and the unions after using a City speech to make his most important non-economic policy pledge so far.

In remarks that will please the the Armed Forces and the US Government, Mr Brown was trying to show that, as Labour leader, he would not lurch to the Left or be soft on defence.

A key component of our nuclear deterrent plan should be to force Britain and France to surrender theirs, which we never should havew allowed them to develop in the first place.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 22, 2006 10:08 AM

Hands off, Yank.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at June 22, 2006 11:03 AM

Unsupervised children oughtn't have access to guns.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 11:11 AM

Britain doesn't worry me, but France, Russia, and China have all shown themselves morally unworthy of such devices. One day a year the U.S. should act just like the leftist press pretends we do. It could be like Saturnalia, only with stealth-bombers.

Posted by: lebeaux at June 22, 2006 12:10 PM

We need India, Israel and Russia to keep theirs in case we need to use them on China or the Arabs.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 12:18 PM

Show some gratitude, OJ: Britain gave us crucial help with several aspects of the Manhattan Project. (And some of the atom spies, too, of course, but we had our home-grown ones as well.)

Posted by: PapayaSF at June 22, 2006 4:09 PM

My son helps me wash the car. I don't let him drive it.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 4:22 PM

If he helped you build or buy it, and he's old enough, you should. I think Britain's old enough for the responsibility.

Posted by: PapayaSF at June 22, 2006 4:56 PM

He isn't. They aren't.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 5:01 PM

That's silly. The British are grownups and can handle the responsibility. There's certainly no current reason to worry for a moment about them having nukes.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 22, 2006 7:29 PM

Anyone happen to watch Dr. Who????

The Slytherin episode?

Their nuke codes were turned over to the UN and the only way to release them was by UN approval.

"Current" is correct, I'm more worried about their future, they're aligning themselves w/the gigolo and the oven maker.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 22, 2006 8:13 PM

They don't need them and forcing them and the French to give them up is only fair.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 9:00 PM

Even if we assume Britain doesn't need them -- and it could be true, since Britain is our friend and it's not like we'd simply sit around if they were attacked -- there's no reason to make it a central demand of a nuclear deterrence scheme. Their possession of nuclear weapons doesn't threaten us and asking the British to give them up (which they wouldn't do) would cause needless fissures in our alliance.

Put bluntly (and in language a conservative can understand): You're proposing an unnecessary change.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 23, 2006 2:23 PM

They'd gladly get out from under owning them as part of a wider deal--they know they're a waste.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2006 2:58 PM