Britain must build its own BOMB! Peter Hitchens backs Ed Davey's plan for a nuclear deterrent free from Trump's America
Britain should follow France's lead and build its own independent nuclear deterrent, breaking free from its dangerous dependence on America, Peter Hitchens has argued.Speaking on the latest Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast, the columnist said the UK can no longer leave its status as a nuclear power to the 'whims' of a vengeful President Trump.While Britain designs and manufactures its own nuclear warheads, the missiles required to deliver them are leased from the United States.
Britain should follow France's lead and build its own independent nuclear deterrent, breaking free from its dangerous dependence on America, Peter Hitchens has argued Speaking on the latest Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast , the columnist said the UK can no longer leave its status as a nuclear power to the 'whims' of a vengeful President TrumpThese missiles are stored and maintained at Kings Bay naval base in Georgia, where they are pooled with American ones. This means the US effectively holds the final say over whether Britain could ever fire them.Britain's nuclear deterrent, known as Trident, is also strategically limited and eye-wateringly expensive. The country can only launch a missile by sea and the programme costs the Exchequer between £2 billion and £3 billion every year.This week, at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in York, party leader Sir Ed Davey called on the government to replace Trident with a truly independent weapons system, amid Trump's fury at Britain's refusal to join America's war against Iran.'The French have their own warheads and missiles', Hitchens began.'As Ed Davey rightly points out, this means they are not subject to the whims of a President who, during breakfast, may divert such a rage against us that he stops us having them.'What we currently have costs a huge amount of money and doesn't work… it would be crazy to give up the bomb altogether, it gives you a certain standing in the world that you would never recover without it.'The question is: do we need this colossally expensive, non-independent and baroque nuclear arsenal?' Britain can only launch a missile by sea and the Trident programme costs the Exchequer between £2 billion and £3 billion every yearThe columnist also argued that if nuclear weapons were ever used, they would most likely be detonated high above a city, destroying every electronic device and communication system below.It is a capability Britain currently lacks entirely, having abandoned the ability to drop nuclear weapons from aircraft decades ago, unlike France, which retains specially adapted planes and pilots trained to do exactly that.There is also a very real danger that any American modifications to the missiles could leave Britain's Trident submarines entirely redundant.'We have ended with a gap between what we would want to do and what we can do', Hitchens warned.'Very serious people in the armed forces have said we should get rid of Trident - this is not some kind of weird, ultra left, hippy position.'We could have a small and credible nuclear weapon: which we may be able to use at a much lower price, which would not be dependent on the Americans.'I think Ed Davey is thinking further ahead and more openly than any of the major political parties are doing.'To hear Peter Hitchens and Sarah Vine debate Britain's nuclear future in full, search for Alas Vine and Hitchens wherever you get your podcasts.
