Trident

The Times wins on best front page of the day (with the Telegraph’s splash on the prolonged flight ban finishing a close second). It has run with the Trident question, which cuts clear divides between the three main parties’ politics. Inside, they have printed a letter from four army generals asking whether the Cold War missile is actually value for money.

The generals question: ““Is the UK’s security best served by going ahead with business as usual; reducing our nuclear arsenal; adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?”

And they make the point: “It may well be that money spent on new nuclear weapons will be money that is not available to support our frontline troops, or for crucial counterterrorism work; money not available for buying helicopters, armoured vehicles, frigates or even for paying for more manpower.”

It does seem like an obvious way to reduce the country’s deficit. But the Times’ leader column cautions: “The only real alternative would be, therefore, to abandon our nuclear capability — and with it our nuclear expertise. That decision would be irreversible. It should not be taken lightly in a flurry of cost-saving, nor because it seems like an easy option in a politically charged debate. The generals are right to argue that Trident should be included in the Strategic Defence Review. The detail would surely make the case for its retention.”

Surely, there would be ways around Britain retaining its nuclear expertise if Trident were scrapped: strategic partnerships between states with experts working collaboratively, for instance. Besides, it is not as there isn't any talk of viable alternatives:

(From the Times' article): “General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank added his weight to the debate last night, saying that a cheaper option to Trident should be considered, particularly as Britain strives for a world without nuclear bombs.

“Do we really need the kind of effective weapon we had in the Cold War? There is quite an argument to say we do not,” he told The Times. He suggested that nuclear-tipped missiles launched from the land or by air were possible alternatives.”