Bob Ainsworth, Liam Fox and Nick Harvey: UK Security and Defence

Ahead of the general election and forthcoming strategic defence review the speakers discussed how the UK can best address emerging and future threats in times of tightening budgets. The transcript is available here - http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/events/view/-/id/1486/ . This discussion with leading members of the three major political parties at Westminster was held as part of a Chatham House project, 'Rethinking the UK's International Ambitions and Choices' - http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/ukrole/ .

Speakers:

Bob Ainsworth MP, Defence Secretary
Dr Liam Fox MP, Shadow Defence Secretary
Nick Harvey MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary
Moderators: Dr Robin Niblett, Director, Chatham House and Sarah Montague, BBC

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• defence
• afghanistan
• uk

[Will762]

@Bakerstreetify No, that's OK, just perturbed by the rapid transformation of my argument.

Nations that don't have NWs don't have foreign policy objectives similar to those of the UK. (i.e. they don't intend to be able to project power and influence across the world in the protection of their interests, on a unilateral basis, to the extent the UK does). All of the developed Western European nations are nuclear-armed, for instance.

[Will762]

@0Pr0b I'm afraid that argument just doesn't stand up.

A pilot might not have to think about his ejection seat for his whole career. But then, when it is required, just once, it must work perfectly.

So it is with NWs: because we don't need to think about them either tells us nothing, or, that they are in fact doing their job (i.e. we are not in the middle of a nuclear war).

[MrBpeter101]

Will762 - I think maybe you are underestimating the scale of the recession. The Institute of Fiscal Studies states that public spending will have to be cut for 8 years before we fully recover.

The key point is that there are 'necessaries' and 'luxuries' in defence spending, and nuclear is a luxury. If we spend money on nuclear weapons it will have to come from elsewhere, either in the defence budget or from education, health, etc.

[0Pr0b]

I was in HM Armed Forces (RAF) for five years and enjoyed every minute of it.

IMHO, there is not enough up to date equipment - or manpower - for the forces to do the wide range of jobs asked of them. The priority must be to make sure that they have the kit they need to achieve their objectives in a particular operation.

Nuclear capability is not really something the average airman needs to think about very often, suggesting it is not particularly relevant to combat needs.

[Bakerstreetify]

OK then Will - sorry if I've upset you - but you haven't answered my question. Other nations in far more dangerous parts of the world are able to defend themselves and advance their foreign policy goals without nuclear weapons, so why must the UK have them?

[Bakerstreetify]

OK then Adam - apologies if I've upset you - but please can I have an answer to my question. If other nations can defend themselves - in far more dangerous parts of the world than the UK - quite adequately and also achieve their foreign policy goals without nuclear weapons, why does the UK have to have them?

[Will762]

@MrBpeter101 So how would I protect the UK - well obviously that can't be briefly answered here. Suffice to say that to muddle short-run and long-run forecasts is a mistake.

Furthermore, this is mostly hysteria about a 'black hole'. Of course we have a budget deficit at a time of GDP growth of just 0.4%. When GDP returns to healthy levels the deficit instantly shrinks. To build long-run defence policy on the basis of one exceptional recession is madness! I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[Will762]

@MrBpeter101 Of course, short-run adjustments can and must be made to serve our current intersets, and this is a good thing.

However, you commit a fundamental error is pushing together the long-run and the short-run defence requirements and investments. The 'don't know' in the argument here is a short-hand. There is a lengthy discussion to be had about why there is no basis on which to scrap the nuke deterrent, but the conclusion is that there is no obvious pattern that indicates thus.

[MrBpeter101]

Will762, you still haven't been able to explain what exactly nuclear weapons would defend against.

At a time when the UK is facing a £35 billion black hole in the defence equipment budget, surely it's a no-brainer to spend money on the threats we know we will face in the near-medium term rather than on the 'don't knows'?

What would you cancel instead of Trident - Astute class subs, joint strike fighters, personal equipment for the boys on the ground ... and how would this help defend the UK?

[Will762]

@Bakerstreetify *off