 |









 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Yesterday we had a textbook bit of holywoodism from the government. And it had everything. There was the unlikely hero who was just the guy we needed to save the world, the random character in the background chattering away in exposition to the audience, explaining that the bold and brave plan wouldn't work. Bystanders were impressed, cute fluffy children and wide eyed innocent bunny rabbits were saved. Labour already have a buyer for the film rights, and Bruce Willis is beefing up his scottish accent to play Brown. To great fanfare from the press, nae-saying from John Hutton, and self congratulation from all concerned, the current government has announced that it would like to scrap a Trident submarine, someday. In a remarkably mild display of cynicism, they're selling this as a step towards global disarmament and a nuclear free world. Except, it just isn't. At the moment, and infact for the last few years, there's only been one trident submarine on patrol at any one time. The other three are in a juggling act of training and parts-swapping to prepare the next boat to go out. In a serious crises two of them might be ready to sail from Faslane at short notice, depending on which parts are in which boat. In this mode of operation loosing one of three spares doesn't degrade the capability much, if at all. The "scrapping" may well just be that the replacement fleet only contains three boats, not so much "scrapping" as "saving a few quid by not building in the first place." This wasn't going to happen under the current parliament anyway. Most cynically of all is that the number of warheads on patrol will actually increase, as those carried by the scrapped boat will be distributed amongst the remaining three. Somehow a 33% increase in available peacetime firepower is a reduction?!
As John Hutton points out, spontaneous reciprocity just doesn't happen in international politics. Even if "Poor Little Britain" had genuinely laid down a third of her arsenal (Rather than grabbed a few from stores for her handbag, just in case.) it's not some wonderful heartwarming image that will thaw the souls of other world powers, world powers are soul-less. Not only that but recently nations have been begging, borrowing, stealing and even developing their own nuclear technology, the seeming insignificance of such programs is the biggest threat. Paltry even compared to Britain's program, an attack by these states on a NATO state or any member of the security council would immediately be met with nuclear or overwhelming conventional retaliation, to smaller nearby states however they pose a serious threat...Britain could disarm entirely without influencing this proliferation in the least. Calling an increase in on patrol warheads a step towards disarmament is pretty mild as Labour PR stunts go, compared to the baby organ scandal, the foot and mouth electioneering, and getting half the unemployed 18 year olds to borrow their own benefits and sit at university rather than clutter up the unemployment stats. Hutton made a couple of comments I agreed with though, firstly that you can't provide continuous global cover with just three boats. At the moment, a country could conceivably have to wait two weeks for the patrol boat to get within range and retaliate against it, this also undermines the potential for using trident in tactical scenarios. Secondly, that we don't know what the world will look like in twenty years time. We don't want to find ourselves needing trident, and not being able to rebuild it quickly enough. To start from scratch and build a new system, even using existing designs could take ten years, recently we've seen the global situation change drastically between two and four years. (Between the attacks on America in 2001, or the start of Bush's election campaign, and the invasion of Iraq.)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I haven't been particularly bored since I got to London,
Friday night was Maggie's sponsored walk, which I attended. I had a hilarious moment of clarity in the last mile when I realised that everyone in front of me was walking the same way, moving their thigh and letting gravity deal with the knee.
After spending most of yesterday in bed my knees are working again.
I've recently been corresponding with my MP, who has been wonderful and pushed it on to the right people. The reply he forwarded back to me was of course pure spin with a theme of "I wish this was Stalin's Russia, where I could have this guy thrown into the gullag for daring to bring this matter up."
I was incensed, livid, fuming, and started writing a reply.
I could remember the broad strokes of the letter, and it was a good week before I had calmed down enough to read it without bursting a couple of blood vessels. This gave me time to filter some of the blunter and agressive terms out of my reply.
Having re-read it, it still stinks of a substance often associated with farmyard animals, but is also from a cabinet minister. Promptiong another rewrite acknowledging that much as I'd like to I can't call a cabinet minster (Even in a Labour cabinet which doubles as a job creation scheme.) An unmitigated nincompoop, at least not to his face.
Well it gives me something to chew on while my laundry's doing.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |




|
 |
|
 |