My personal reading: this is a unilateral gesture ahead of multilateral talks, as expression of good faith, but that there could be a willingness to do more multilaterally in a global deal.

That isn’t being shouted about by UK government, but its clearly there between the lines, and in the Miliband piece.

The “single figure billions” shaved off the defence bill would go nicely toward the surveillance society.

@ Sunder, it’s not ‘clearly’ anything. The government had the chance to make progressive announcements on Trident when the white paper on renewal was released, or while protests at Faslane were being stamped or any other instance since Brown took office. That it takes place now, before the last party conference before a general election is, as Dave Osler says, just naked opportunism.

There is nothing unilateral about it – it’s another example of the British trotting into line with the latest trends in American politics ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2009/sep/23/obama-nuclear-unitednations ).

The fact that these are moves in a positive direction (regardless of whether or not Obama’s intentions come to anything in the face of the opposition) does not make Britain’s servile adherence to America’s policy de jour any less odious.

Dave@3

You are right. So for ‘clearly’, please delete and read ‘obliquely’, ‘tacitly’ or perhaps ‘unclearly’.

However, I think the line below is intended to signal this, quietly

“For the UK’s part, we have reduced the overall explosive power of our nuclear arsenal by 75% since the cold war; our warheads are not targeted at any particular country; and they are at several days’ notice to fire. As soon as it becomes useful for the UK arsenal to be included in a broader negotiation, we stand ready to participate and to act“.

The motivations may well involve mixtures of high principle, political calculation and naked opportunism, in whatever quantities

“The standard justification is that nukes are ‘essential for our national security’. That is an argument for proliferation. On those grounds, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have as much of a case as we do. So did Saddam Hussein. If they make us safer, then they would make Iran, Egypt, Taiwan and Brazil safer, too.”

Well, not really.

The idea surely is that nukes are essential for our safety and not theirs

That is, because we have nukes and they don’t, we are more safe. So stuff them.

It’s an argument for proliferation from the viewpoint of Iran, sure. But then, in international relations the point has never been to take all viewpoints into consideration equally.

(though of course things get more complicated when you bring in the “mutual assured destruction = assured non-use by all parties” line of reasoning).

Point is, when discussing our nuclear deterrent, it’s quite reasonable and consistent to operate on the assumption that potential antagonists don’t get access to the weapons we have.

Not that I support having a nuclear deterrent and continuing in the fantasy that Britain is a first-rate power (or that we should desire to be one), just thought this move was a bit crass.

To be fair to Ms. Hudson, the move could gradually help her aim. Many of her most vocal opponents are of the “if we don’t have enough nukes to carpet-bomb Jupiter, the Russians/French/Martians will surely invade” school of thought. Perhaps if we scrapped a submarine or two, and the little green men weren’t striding into the Palace of Westminster, it could allay some fears. Not, of course, that such people are automatically rational, but it doesn’t hurt.

Has anyone calculated how much it would save over the next 40 years to drop Trident and ID cards? (E.g. a lot more than the headline ‘costs’.)

The front page of LC currently says “Trident spending cut buy a quarter”

This is quite wrong. Even if we are moving to three boats rather than 4, it is a bit like saying if we make 3 cars instead of 4 the cost will therefore be cut by a quarter. The infrastucture required to run those cars will still be required (repair garage, parkign facilites, petrol stations) and will be very little affected in cost terms by the number of cars.

A three boat solution will cost almost as much as a four boat solution, especially as the last boat made will be the cheapest of them all . So dont get your hopes up for a peace dividend