The Lib Dems are very good at coming forward with their own particular solutions.
Defence secretary, Liam Fox
Liberal Democrat alternative plans for the nuclear deterrent "could start world war three", an MP has warned.
Speaking during defence questions in the Commons this afternoon, Tory MP Julian Lewis said placing nuclear warheads on cruise missiles was "more expensive and less effective" than the planned Trident replacement.
He said: "As an alterative to Trident, the idea of putting nuclear tipped cruise missiles on Astute class submarines would be more expensive, less effective, put the submarine at risk and because you can't know what sort of warhead is on a cruise missile until it has landed and could start world war three by accident."
Defence secretary Liam Fox said he was "unlikely to be tempted" to address Liberal Democrat policy, but said the cruise missile based option was not being looked at as part of the defence review.
"When we looked at options for other systems including cruise missiles and silo based missiles when House considered this in 2006 and 2007, other options were discounted due to effectiveness and cost," he said.
And responding for Labour, Diana Johnson asked whether the Lib Dems had put forward their alternative options to him, Fox said the government was committed to retaining a minimum nuclear deterrent "based on trident".
"I'm responsible for a lot of things, the answers from the Liberal Democrats on specific points of policy is a matter for them not for me," he said.
He added: "The Lib Dems are very good at coming forward with their own particular solutions."
The Coalition agreement states that the government will "maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent" but that the parties had agreed the renewal of Trident should be "scrutinised to ensure value for money".
It adds: "Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives."
A Lib Dem policy paper published n March 2010 does suggest that the option of placing nuclear tipped warheads on cruise missiles should be "investigated".
But it also acknowledges that such a move carries "financial, technological and capability risks".
Article Comments
The discussion during Defence Questions highlights the need to consider the options for replacing Trident nuclear weapons in a sensible and systematic way. It is clear that there is a spectrum of options between 'like for like' replacement and no replacement, some of which may provide better value for money than like for like replacement and also a better match for the country's defence needs.
Why, then, has this hugely important issue been excluded from the Defence Review, which is supposed to be addressing the way forward for defence policy and the affordability of military equipment?
David Handley
11th Jul 2010 at 9:50 pm
Here at Tridentvote we are angry at being given no say in this sham and secret value for money study. But anyway, it is only happening to excuse the ConDem government's refusal to include Trident in the defence review.
On 17 April, LibDem press release was headed "Ridiculous not to consider Trident in the defence review". Then on 8 June: LibDem MPs voted down a motion to include Trident in defence review.
David Cameron, replying to Julian Huppert's question on 23/6 said "Britain should retain the nuclear deterrent and we should always keep that insurance policy," whereas the FCO website affirms "the Government's commitment to multilateral nuclear disarmament".
William Hague's statement (14/6) on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is actually titled 'Working towards a world without nuclear weapons'.
With the PM and Foreign Secretary totally disagreeing over what their line is, the Government now has two different multilateral nuclear disarmament policies: one for and one against!
How can anyone trust them on Trident replacement?
Paul Barasi
5th Jul 2010 at 7:37 pm
Often, it is said, that the conclusions of UK Defence Reviews cannot be delivered before the subsequent review. However, this is not true of Trident. The implications of the long term threat assessment to the UK should be addressed now however to do so is unaffordable. But then which third party nation will sit idly by when a nation with a weak conventional defence is threatened but that nation has Trident.
Ian Thompson
5th Jul 2010 at 7:24 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.