David Cameron says scrapping nuclear deterrent would be foolish in face of 'evolving threats' from North Korea and Iran
The prime minister has stressed the need for the UK to retain its Trident nuclear deterrent, saying it would be "foolish to leave Britain defenceless" in the face of the growing threat posed by North Korea and Iran.
David Cameron's insistence on the need for an independent nuclear deterrent came as the US said it was moving an advanced missile system to the Pacific island of Guam as Pyongyang continued to ratchet up the rhetoric against South Korea and its American ally.
Writing in Thursday's Daily Telegraph, the prime minister said such "evolving threats" underlined the need for the UK to maintain the ultimate deterrent.
"We need our nuclear deterrent as much today as we did when a previous British government embarked on it over six decades ago," he said. "Of course, the world has changed dramatically. The Soviet Union no longer exists. But the nuclear threat has not gone away. In terms of uncertainty and potential risk it has, if anything, increased."
Cameron said Iran was continuing to defy the will of the international community over its nuclear programme while North Korea may already be building a nuclear arsenal.
"The highly unpredictable and aggressive regime in North Korea recently conducted its third nuclear test and could already have enough fissile material to produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons," he said.
"Last year North Korea unveiled a long-range ballistic missile which it claims can reach the whole of the United States."
Were such a weapon to exist, he said, the whole of Europe – including the UK – would be affected.
The prime minister added: "Does anyone seriously argue that it would be wise for Britain, faced with this evolving threat today, to surrender our deterrent?
"Only the retention of our independent deterrent makes clear to any adversary that the devastating cost of an attack on the UK or its allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain."
Cameron's comments underline the Conservatives' commitment to a like-for-like replacement for the ageing Trident submarine fleet, although their Liberal Democrat coalition partners are seeking a cheaper alternative.
The future of Trident is also likely to feature in next year's looming Scottish independence referendum campaign, with the SNP insisting that it would not allow nuclear missiles to be based in an independent Scotland.
The shadow defence minister, Kevan Jones, said that while it was "absolutely right and necessary" for the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent, the costs involved needed to be taken into account.
"World events demonstrate that in an unpredictable era our country needs the ultimate security guarantee," he said. "The precise nature of the deterrent must be judged on meeting military capability requirements and cost."
The prime minister attempted to head off such questions in his Telegraph article, arguing that national security was worth the price of the deterrent.
"Our current nuclear weapons capability costs on average around 5%-6% of the current defence budget," he said. "That is less than 1.5% of our annual benefits bill. And the successor submarines are, on average, expected to cost the same once they have entered service. It is a price which I, and all my predecessors since Clement Attlee, have felt is worth paying to keep this country safe." Reported by guardian.co.uk 3 hours ago.
The prime minister has stressed the need for the UK to retain its Trident nuclear deterrent, saying it would be "foolish to leave Britain defenceless" in the face of the growing threat posed by North Korea and Iran.
David Cameron's insistence on the need for an independent nuclear deterrent came as the US said it was moving an advanced missile system to the Pacific island of Guam as Pyongyang continued to ratchet up the rhetoric against South Korea and its American ally.
Writing in Thursday's Daily Telegraph, the prime minister said such "evolving threats" underlined the need for the UK to maintain the ultimate deterrent.
"We need our nuclear deterrent as much today as we did when a previous British government embarked on it over six decades ago," he said. "Of course, the world has changed dramatically. The Soviet Union no longer exists. But the nuclear threat has not gone away. In terms of uncertainty and potential risk it has, if anything, increased."
Cameron said Iran was continuing to defy the will of the international community over its nuclear programme while North Korea may already be building a nuclear arsenal.
"The highly unpredictable and aggressive regime in North Korea recently conducted its third nuclear test and could already have enough fissile material to produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons," he said.
"Last year North Korea unveiled a long-range ballistic missile which it claims can reach the whole of the United States."
Were such a weapon to exist, he said, the whole of Europe – including the UK – would be affected.
The prime minister added: "Does anyone seriously argue that it would be wise for Britain, faced with this evolving threat today, to surrender our deterrent?
"Only the retention of our independent deterrent makes clear to any adversary that the devastating cost of an attack on the UK or its allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain."
Cameron's comments underline the Conservatives' commitment to a like-for-like replacement for the ageing Trident submarine fleet, although their Liberal Democrat coalition partners are seeking a cheaper alternative.
The future of Trident is also likely to feature in next year's looming Scottish independence referendum campaign, with the SNP insisting that it would not allow nuclear missiles to be based in an independent Scotland.
The shadow defence minister, Kevan Jones, said that while it was "absolutely right and necessary" for the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent, the costs involved needed to be taken into account.
"World events demonstrate that in an unpredictable era our country needs the ultimate security guarantee," he said. "The precise nature of the deterrent must be judged on meeting military capability requirements and cost."
The prime minister attempted to head off such questions in his Telegraph article, arguing that national security was worth the price of the deterrent.
"Our current nuclear weapons capability costs on average around 5%-6% of the current defence budget," he said. "That is less than 1.5% of our annual benefits bill. And the successor submarines are, on average, expected to cost the same once they have entered service. It is a price which I, and all my predecessors since Clement Attlee, have felt is worth paying to keep this country safe." Reported by guardian.co.uk 3 hours ago.