logo
   Web Issue 3272 October 7 2008   
spacer
Army asked to defend £6bn nuclear spend as training cut
IAN BRUCE, Defence CorrespondentDecember 12 2007

Senior opposition politicians yesterday questioned why Britain is spending £6.4bn on its strategic nuclear deterrent while basic combat training for troops is being cancelled on cost grounds.

They also called for a comprehensive defence review to prioritise the country's military needs and tailor funding to match the threats.

The LibDems said 36 exercises had been cancelled since 2003 to save money, including 18 in the past two years as fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan intensified to levels not seen since the Korean War.

Nick Harvey, the party's defence spokesman, said: "This is an issue that goes beyond our spending on the nuclear deterrent.

"We need a complete rethink on how the entire defence budget is spent.

"Gordon Brown has become very fond of boasting about how much money is spent on defence, but the sad fact is that basics like training and accommodation are still being left desperately underfunded."

The SNP meanwhile revealed that the Ministry of Defence has committed more than 5% of its entire budget over the next three years to maintain the Royal Navy's four Trident missile submarines and the Atomic Weapons Establishment warhead plant at Aldermaston.

‘Basics like training and accommodation are still being left underfunded’

According to the MoD's own figures, revealed in a Parliamentary written answer to Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, keeping the nuclear arsenal credible will cost £3bn between now and 2009, and another £3.4bn from then until 2011.

More than £2.6bn is scheduled to go on Aldermaston, where a new super-laser and powerful computers have been installed to help design the next generation of nuclear warheads.

A total of £30m has also been earmarked "to examine the optimum life of the UK's existing nuclear warhead stockpile and assess the range of replacement options" under a programme run by the Warhead Pre-Concept Working Group.

This follows the government's decision to replace the four existing Vanguard-class missile boats from the mid-2020s and equip them with new "reliable" warheads already believed to be under development in co-operation with the US.

The MoD categorically denied that any soldier bound for frontline service had been deprived of essential training for deployment to war zones, but conceded that 127 "training events" had been cancelled or postponed since 2005.

Of these, more than 30 had to be scrapped as a result of "operational commitments"- mainly because the troops due to take part were either in Helmand or Basra or had just returned from tours of duty.

"All personnel undergo three months of pre-deployment training before going to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

"No-one is being deprived of essential preparation for role. Scheduled exercises have been cancelled for a variety of reasons including operational tempo," a spokesman said.

Each of the Royal Navy's four Vanguard submarine carries a maximum of 48 warheads on 16 Trident missiles. The UK's total nuclear stockpile is understood to be fewer than 160 warheads.

A number of former military commanders have spoken out in the past year on the fact that training cutbacks and overstretch of ever-scarcer manpower is eroding the UK's future ability to fight a war against any technologically-competent enemy.


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Posted by: druidh on 12:09am Wed 12 Dec 07
If I was Argentinian, I'd be thinking about a wee boat trip with some mates.....
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis, (near) Vancouver, Canada on 2:32am Wed 12 Dec 07
"PLAYING ONE ARMED FORCES SERVICE BRANCH OFF AGAINST ANOTHER IS A WELL WORN, ALBEIT UNETHICAL, LABOUR-POLICY"

Between 1918 and 1937 the what was then the Royal Navy's 'Admiralty' ' fought with the Royal Air Force's commanders for administrative and planning control of the newly formed Royal Navy's 'Air Arm'.

This nearly 2-decades of infighting between UK armed forces services' branches resulted in a Royal Navy that was ill-equipped to fight WWII at sea with a competent air-power strategy, and without ships- namely aircraft carriers- that were up-to-the-job of providing the level and effectiveness of air-cover that current technology possessed-by-the-UK then would have enabled.

Labour's relatively recent decision to remove ALL of the RN's Aircraft Carriers' fixed-wing type aircraft from the Royal Navy's administrative control, and put these under a 'joint command'- shared between the RAF and the RN- is a giant leap back in time to 1918... with its accompanying disadvantages and counterproductive internecine conflicts between different service branches of the UK armed forces...

The apparent 'competition' for funds between the RN and training for army personnel- being cultivated by transparently-inadeq

uate Labour policies- is another symptom of Labour's two-faced-ness:

Generous armed forces funding is claimed by Labour, while Labour simultaneously sets up competition between, for example, the RN and the army so as to provide cover while one of the two is actually grievously reduced in their capacities/manpower/

future abilities.

Roderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, Canada
rvlouis@patientempow
ermentsociety.com
Posted by: Colin B, BEArsden on 8:05am Wed 12 Dec 07
The answer to the opposition;s questions - It's because Browne is an incompetent admitted liar and Brown is a penny pinching control freak who does not see the consequences of his actions - not enough helicopters, troops, ships !
They can find money to lavish on their beloved civil servants
Posted by: Rab Ha', The Glesca Glutton on 9:33am Wed 12 Dec 07
Roderick V. Louis wrote:
"PLAYING ONE ARMED FORCES SERVICE BRANCH OFF AGAINST ANOTHER IS A WELL WORN, ALBEIT UNETHICAL, LABOUR-POLICY" Between 1918 and 1937 the what was then the Royal Navy's 'Admiralty' ' fought with the Royal Air Force's commanders for administrative and planning control of the newly formed Royal Navy's 'Air Arm'. This nearly 2-decades of infighting between UK armed forces services' branches resulted in a Royal Navy that was ill-equipped to fight WWII at sea with a competent air-power strategy, and without ships- namely aircraft carriers- that were up-to-the-job of providing the level and effectiveness of air-cover that current technology possessed-by-the-UK then would have enabled. Labour's relatively recent decision to remove ALL of the RN's Aircraft Carriers' fixed-wing type aircraft from the Royal Navy's administrative control, and put these under a 'joint command'- shared between the RAF and the RN- is a giant leap back in time to 1918... with its accompanying disadvantages and counterproductive internecine conflicts between different service branches of the UK armed forces... The apparent 'competition' for funds between the RN and training for army personnel- being cultivated by transparently-inadeq uate Labour policies- is another symptom of Labour's two-faced-ness: Generous armed forces funding is claimed by Labour, while Labour simultaneously sets up competition between, for example, the RN and the army so as to provide cover while one of the two is actually grievously reduced in their capacities/manpower/ future abilities. Roderick V. Louis (near) Vancouver, Canada rvlouis@patientempow ermentsociety.com
RODERICK LEWIS
Look...you've been told MANY times now by various posters.............
.JUST F*** OFF...........we don't want to listen to ANY inmate of ANY Canadian sanatorium Thank You.
You attempt to be an expert on EVERY subject under the sun, post EVERYWHERE, Use a hundred words where one will do..................
...........and you're a BORING B***ARD as well
Nurse, take the crayons away from this clown, and increase the medication..........
................EEJI
T !!
Posted by: martin, edinburgh on 10:15am Wed 12 Dec 07
"Army asked to defend £6bn nuclear spend "

That'll be difficult, considering it's the Navy that has the nukes
Posted by: Celtic Lion, Roar on 11:19am Wed 12 Dec 07
"Gordon Brown has become very fond of boasting about how much money is spent on defence..."

That's because he knows he's being misleading to the electorate, and that appears to be when he feels most comfortable.
Posted by: Chris Ward, On this planet. on 12:09pm Wed 12 Dec 07
What's wrong 'Rab Ha' was Roderick V. Louis using words which were too big for you? or was a reasoned, well though out and well put argument too much for your little brain ? or was it just he did not swear enough ?
If you can only be obscene, and a disgrace to Glasgow , don't waste the space.
Posted by: Jim, Irvine on 12:27pm Wed 12 Dec 07
What is absolutely disgracefull is that most of the money will be spent on American Armaments. Aldermaston Nuclear Station is now
run by Haliburton ; there was talk about the ' Recalibration of Trident
Missiles ' . What does this mean ? Are we targetting Russia or Iran?
We should know. Haliburton and KBR were in deep financial trouble
in America recently. They are not to be trusted.
NU Labour and the Tories are a Parcel of Rogues. UK science and
Armaments Company Quinetiq was sold off cheaply to the American
Carlyle Armaments Company. Sir John Major is on the Board. As
European Financial Director ! The Guardian Newspaper reckons
that insider dealings should be investigated.
But apparently Police are busy investigating Horse Racing Scams
and Dodgy Donation Scandals.
And we are Fighting to give Democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Posted by: The Laird of Drumboe, Donegal on 5:13pm Wed 12 Dec 07
Senior opposition politicians yesterday questioned why Britain is spending £6.4bn on its strategic nuclear deterrent while basic combat training for troops is being cancelled on cost grounds.


First, if the Conservative party was in power they would be spending the money and Nu-Labour would be asking the same question - no crocodile tears please.
Second. We have no alternative to continuing with the nuclear policy because we have promised the Yanks we would do it.
Third , it is a convenient way of transferring capital from the rich to the poor.
Fourthly. Bilderberg.
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis, (near) Vancouver, BC, Canada on 10:52pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Rab Ha', The Glesca Glutton

I was off work over the Christmas period- and also took this time to focus on issues other than those that require news media/Internet use.

Don't know if this 'reply' to your above note is too late to get noticed by you.

And recognizing the apparent 'disturbed reactionary status'... of yourself, maybe if it is noticed it will cause you to, again, illogically rant to the point of needing sedation...

In regards to your inferences regarding my residence: I live 'near' Vancouver, British Columbia... by myself- and have for about 17 years.

In regards to your implied opinion as to my motivations for 'posting comments on issues that I choose'- you don't know, nor have you asked:

- where I am writing from (within British Columbia);

- what my intended purposes are;

- what my background is;

- what my current work is;

- where I was born; or

- how often/how much of an average year I reside in the UK.

One of the benefits- and most widely praised aspects- of the Internet is its facilitation of 'any person' expressing their views on subjects/issues that previous to its existence, was not possible for most.

Following- to its ultimate conclusion- your apparent 'argument' as to 'why' I should not comment on issues that I choose, would mandate the 'shutting down' of the Internet.

Is this something that you promote??

Part of my work in an earlier decade was setting up and running- for 18-years- a non-profit agency which, among other things, exists to advocate for issues relating to the needs of adults with severe mental illnesses.

The temper tantrum texting that you practice appears to myself, based upon over 2-decades working for and with adults with severe mental illnesses, as likely symptomatic of an urgently in-need of diagnosing and treatment condition....

Your inappropriately emphasized use of the term 'we' in your note above- when referring to yourself- implies 'delusions of grandeur'.

This can and usually is- among adults- a symptom of mania, schizoaffective disorder or psychosis, often caused by improper use of narcotics.

Going by the childlike nature of your note, I guess I ought to not assume that you are an adult, but in case you are of age, I again suggest- tactfully-: you may be in need of treatment, and the NHS would be a good place to go for an evaluation...

I urge you to seek this at your earliest convenience.

Happy new year

Roderick V. Louis
living by myself,
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:
spacer
 IN YOUR AREA
 
Herald Appointments - Every Friday
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved   
Sitemap :: Circulation :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use