North Korea continues to rattle the sabre enough so that the USA is actually beginning to pay attention! In fact, far from a rattle, its more like a manufactured earthquake, since the Obama Administration barely turned in their sleep when Kim Jong-un first began to unveil his threats.
Britain has also reacted with Prime Minister David Cameron coming out in favour of renewing the Trident missile nuclear deterrence fleet with a newer form of submarine. The move is somewhat of a departure from for the budget cutting Cameron whose previous across the board cuts included those to the defense department of around 8 per cent between 2010 and 2015. This has left Britain without a working aircraft carrier and meant the loss of 30,000 Armed Forces posts.
The Prime Minister’s move is seen not only as eyeing the increasing nuclear threats from North Korea, Iran & others, but also as a shot across the bow to voters for Scottish independence. Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet operates from Scotland and its loss would result in thousands of job losses, with Cameron categorically stating that it would be moved south – out of an independent Scotland, should they vote to leave the UK next year.
Despite acknowledging the threats posed that justify a nuclear deterrent, the Prime Minister & George Osborne, the Chancellor, are preparing a Spending Review for 2015/16 that has raised the prospect of more cuts in the Ministry of Defence budget, on top of those made by the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010.
Given all this contradictory thought one has to wonder what exactly then Prime Minister’s position is? His opponents are more assured of their opposition whilst avoiding outright rejection of Cameron’s plans.
Lib-Dem MP Sir Malcolm Bruce “We are saying we shouldn't replace Trident on a like-for-like basis but we are looking at alternative nuclear deterrents once Trident has passed its sell-by date."
Meanwhile Labour shadow defence minister Kevan Jones said it was "absolutely right and necessary" for the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent, but it must take into account the costs involved saying "World events demonstrate that in an unpredictable era our country needs the ultimate security guarantee, the precise nature of the deterrent must be judged on meeting military capability requirements and cost."
This is high quality political gobbledy-# from everyone. The Conservatives want to cut the military further despite acknowledging existing threats, but retain the ultimate deterrent. The Lib.-Dems. want to come up with something else but they have no idea what! Labour says it’s essential to have a nuclear deterrent, unless it costs too much!
Conservative budgeting really is a good idea, you spend no more than you bring in on things you only really need. This concept seems to have been lost by everyone in Westminster as they invest time and effort trying to cover all political bases while appearing smart and well-informed.
The lefties at least are consistent in their position. Absolutely nothing to them is too expensive except the military. The ideas of confronting evil and maintaining peace & order, by force if necessary, just never seems to sit well with them. Still, they keep their options open while frowning disapprovingly.
As for Britain’s centre-right leaders it seems they spend too much time concerning themselves with what will be deemed as fair solutions. The Cameron regime has cut spending across the board in an effort to avoid political criticism, but that doesn’t make their choices the right ones. In reality, the budget needed to be reduced because of the economy. However some things should have been cut or eliminated regardless, while others should have been preserved.
Although the nuclear-deterrent will be maintained, Britain will be without it’s much more valuable aircraft carrier fleet until approximately 2020. The ability of the UK to be a major player in world events has been severely compromised by fearful political correctness. This thinking is more concerned about being able to slickly present their position across the media spectrum, than in serving the best interests of the nation.
