The Blog of
Nadine Dorries
Trident
Posted Saturday, 2 May 2009 at 11:44

I have just watched last nights Newsnight whilst waiting to go and open a church window (note to self; take screwdriver) it suddenly occurred to me that both Patrick Mercer and Nicholas Soames  were using a rhetoric which was in the style of men who were truly preparing to govern.

In fact, if you didn't know they were in opposition, you could be forgiven for thinking they were indeed already in government, so seriously are they contemplating the task ahead.

I'm sure all these men commenting on Trident are absolutely right, and what would I know? I'm just a girl on the backbenches who relies too much on instinct,  however, I think I must be the only person who doesn't want the Trident programme to be cut.

The major spend, 15billion, isn't going to kick in for another 15 years. Who knows where we will be by then?

Could we have predicted 9.11 or Kings Cross 15 years ago? Could we have foreseen that we would have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How can we possibly predict today what threat the future may hold? Has anyone listened to the words of
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of
Iran just lately?

We frequently witness the zealous rise in Islamist fundamentalism in this country and abroad, to the dismay of all who are not, including the vast majority of the peaceful Muslim community.

It must be obvious to all that there will be little common ground between a faction which wants to see anyone who is not an Islamist wiped of the face of the earth, and just about every other religion in the world, including Christianity.

I am sure there are other ways, and I wait to be educated, however, it seems to me that a priority of any government is to keep its people safe - not be aggressive or war like - just keep people safe.

I can't think of any better way of doing that other than with the threat of deployment of Trident missiles, which cannot be intercepted once launched.

I'm not being hawkish here, I just want to know that one day when I die, a nuclear sub will be prowling silently under the water, to the knowledge of all, keeping both my kids safe in their beds and the beliefs of billions intact.

 

I don’t think 15 billion is too much to ask for that when we have a government today wasting trillions!

 

I also believe we ask too much of our troops in terms of what we expect from them in situations of conflict. Evidenced from the condition of the boots to vehichles and tanks in Iraq.

 

If we cut back on Trident was does that say to our very own heroes?

Anyway, what do I know? I am definitley on safer ground talking about hospitals than nuclear subs!

 

 
 
 
Silent Hunter said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
I take it you've never read "On the Beach" then. Nuclear weapons are pointless - The first country to use them also dies in the fallout - end of days, end of life. It worries me that there are still people in positions of power who can countenance such lunacy.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Silent Hunter Nadine is absolutley right. I am infuriated at the way politicians discuss Trident. You keep to your fiction and leave others to talk common sense.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Save the £15 billion and pretend we have them. Afterall Saddam did a bloody good job on our Government and MI5 making them believe he held WMD.
 
 
Rainer Unsinn said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
I think that the whole Trident issue needs open debate, so that everyone can get a clear picture of both sides of the argument. 15 billion is not a lot, compared to what ZaNu Labour have thrown down the pan, but, at the moment, it is money needed elsewhere (e.g. hospitals, child-care, etc). Silent Hunter, I've not read the piece of fiction, that you mention, but I have read scientific reports on nuclear fallout. Take Chernobyl, for instance. 400 times the radioactivity was released from Chernobyl as from the Hiroshima bomb, but 60% of the fallout never made it further than Belarus. The rest was carried high into the atmosphere, where it was dispersed and diluted. 23 years after Chernobyl, we are all still here (well, most of us, anyway). The other point is that we don't need the large bombs, that were prevalent in the 60s and 70s. We, now, have the ability to pinpoint a target to within feet. We can, now, bore deep into underground bunkers, before exploding the warhead. Small strategic weapons are far more useful and do far less collateral damage, with far less fallout.
 
 
Mark said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
I am on safer ground talking about hospitals. Are you sure about that nadine :)
 
 
ABDULLA HAKIM said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Well said Mrs Dorries. You certainly know your foreign policy and your defence policy and you will be an excellent Secretary of State for defence, next year when you are in government. There must be no weakness in the British resolve to do what is right. Good show!
 
 
Silent Hunter said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
And I suppose Mutally Assured Destruction, or "MAD" as it's better known, comes under your criteria for 'common sense' LOL I think you're right to remain anonymous. Rainer: The book I refer to by Neville Shute was also made into a film in 1959 starring Rock Hudson - it is rather a depressing movie where those in the southern hemisphere await the fallout cloud from the devastating nuclear war in the northern hemisphere to finally end all life on earth. I take it that you are aware of the nature of radioactive particles? Dispersal of radioactive dust just means that 'it goes further from the source' it does not mean that it ceases to exist - when it falls back to earth and it will because we have convection currents in the atmosphere - the problem will be the same - contamination. Similarly, 'dilution' implies that it becomes less dangerous the more it spreads over a wider area. But it only takes one speck of dust to lodge in your soft tissues to trigger cancer. Did you know that the Fins use reindeer to control the fallout contamination from Chernobyl? The animals graze contaminated land and are then herded into one place and all shot and left to lie - this concentrates the fallout in one place where it is easier to deal with. I'm sorry, but radiation is not something that is "a bit iffy". . . . . it's deadly! For over a 1000 years. I can't believe some of the nonsense I read about 'strategic nuclear weapons' as if they don't contaminate or send up plumes of radioactive dust. Why do you think that 1 in 3 people on this planet now get cancer? Could it be that all those lovely nuclear bomb tests; the dust from which simply 'disappeared' into the atmosphere has decided to fall back down to earth? Duh!
 
 
Brishank said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Silent Hunter, The whole purpose of having nuclear weapons is so that they will never be used. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the consequence of an atomic war. We fire ours at an enemy and we know they will fire theirs at us! Stalemate! The only other way to assure they will never be fired is to get rid of them, but not unilaterly, and this will never happen because you cannot un-invent something once it's been invented. The surest way now to avoid a nuclear conflict is to posess nuclear weapons. Think about it.
 
 
Claude Gavroche said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Trident is important to the Tory party. Many of the front bench politicans, their families and firms finance Trident. Soames and Mercer, and several other MP's are deeply involved in the arms trade, and are not fastidious about to whom the arms are sold. The British sold arms to Saddam Hussein. British firms owned by Conservative politicians sold arms to white South Africa and South American dictators. I wonder if Mrs Dorries will deny that this is true. So please answer: Are Conservative Politicans involved in the arms trade? I would bet 50 euros that Mrs Dorries does not reply to this post.
 
 
Claude Gavroche said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Madame Dorries J'ai gagné mon €50 parce que j'ai su que vous ne répondriez pas ! Vous pas savez n'importe quoi du Trident et vous êtes une femme très stupide. Nous savons en France de vos affaires méchantes de bras. Vous êtes méchant !
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
We frequently witness the zealous rise in Islamist fundamentalism in this country and abroad, to the dismay of all who are not, including the vast majority of the peaceful Muslim community. No! No! Nadine The rise in of zealots in Islamic fundamentalism. Come Nadine, what about Syntax, after all you are not John Prescott. Make an effort to do better!!!
 
 
Gerry Smith said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Nadine - you argue that because we don't know what the future holds we need to upgrade Trident. Strangely 'tho, the atrocities you list happened DESPITE the fact that Britain had a nuclear deterrent. At the end of the day us having Trident and the USA having a massive nuclear arsenal made no effect whatsover. We should get rid of these useless anachronisms, invest in appropriate defences, and spend the resouces released on more socially useful prpgrammes. I respectfully suggest you read up on the Industrial Military Complex - which exerts such a malevolent influnce in the World.
 
 
Silent Hunter said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Brishank: Er? I have 'thought about it' which is why I think it's MAD! To follow the logic - if we all equipped ourselves with knives then there would be no more knife crime - some one will use one of these things some day because they exist - when that happens will we all say "hang on' if we use our weapons - we ALL die - probably not; because there will be enough stupid people around to call for vengeance regardless of the consequences to themselves - religious fundamentalism anyone?
 
 
Cromwell Uguale said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Well Yes, The British have sold arms to Nigeria; to both sides, at the same time in the Biafra war. General Gowan said so. Does Nadine Dorries hold shares in the arms trade, and is that why she supports Trident? I do not believe that Mrs Dorries cares what happens to anybody so long as the money keeps flowing in, in regular amounts, Just like a True Conservative. In the African Bush, I learned: "The Conservative party means riches and privileges for the few; the rest will have to do, without". That will never change.
 
 
Terry said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
wHAT A LOT OF BOLLOCKS IN THE COMMENTS! i am sure Nadine doesnt have shares in the arms trade, the suggestion is laughable. Nadine Dorries has voiced the inner worry that most of us have. i want to be safe and so does everyone else, if getting rid of Trident makes us more vulemrable then why are we doing that? We are an island and we need to look after our own. We need a few more women of instinct like you nadien.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
I love the whole 'I'm just a girl on the back benches thing'. Having watched you in action during the abortion bill I think we know that this is just an act. A good one though as you do seem to take Labour by surprise over and over again. Good on yer gal!
 
 
Cromwell Uguale said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Silent Hunter makes an excellent point. However, we do not have to be afraid of stupid people like armchair bigots, remember, Alf Garnett and his Tory claptrap ? We have to be afraid of intelligent, committed religious and political zealots who are certain of their assignment, often guided by some fanatical doctrine. It does not matter to them how many people are killed. This is called paranoia and it is not amenable to reason or negotiation. It would not matter if every household in the land had a Trident Missile, and every citizen in the land had a Centurion Tank at their disposal. These people will hit us and win, because they do not care if they are killed. How will Trident Missiles fight that, Mrs Dorries? PS. Terry's contribuiton is very sophisticated and well reasoned. Mrs Dorries would never receive payment from the arms trade; NEVER!
 
 
Cromwell Uguale said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Wait a minute. if everybody in the land had a Trident Missile, then Mrs Dorries (if she did trade in munitions)would be very rich indeed.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Terry is right. "We always look after our own!". So say The Sons of the Widows Son!
 
 
Sophia Pangloss said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
"I'm not being hawkish here, I just want to know that one day when I die, a nuclear sub will be prowling silently under the water, to the knowledge of all, keeping both my kids safe in their beds and the beliefs of billions intact." - You're not being hawkish dear, just a bit bonkers. what beliefs need kept intact? does Islam count among them? "I don’t think 15 billion is too much to ask for that when we have a government today wasting trillions!" - Looks like a boomerang quote to me...
 
 
Mike H said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
A world without nuclear weapons would clearly be a good thing. Before the 1940s and the dawn of the nuclear age, our species had already developed and refined more than enough ways of maiming and butchering each other. With the arrival of each new weapon technology came the natural response for everyone to want the same capability or be wiped-out by their enemies. The natural conclusion of that process is that we now have a means of creating a bang that has the potential to destroy most life forms on the planet. The whole M.A.D. strategy is just that, completely mad; but it worked during the cold war - just. I was 16 at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I clearly remember going to school during those tense days and thinking that everything might suddenly end in a bright flash. The political landscape of the world has changed a lot since then, but there are now many more countries that have, or are developing, a nuclear capability. Some of those countries are highly unstable and governed by fanatics, Without the ability to see into the future, we have to assume that there might be nuclear-capable states who would wish to harm the UK and its allies. In that case, it seems to me that it's the duty of our government to retain a nuclear retaliatory capability that's up to date and flexible enough to meet the needs of an unknown future. Hopefully it will never be used, but its very existence is a key part of our defence against future enemies who possess nuclear weapons. MAD? Yes, but do we really have any choice in the matter?
 
 
Sophia Pangloss said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Problem is that MAD only works with overwherlming abilities, not with rogue states and incipient capabilities. Trident's time is past, we don't need or want the ability to devastate some broken asian or african country, that's just mean!
 
 
Mike H said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Maybe I should clarify one point that I didn't cover in my earlier comment. My argument is for the retention of a flexible, technologically up-to-date nuclear deterrent. That may or may not be Trident as currently proposed. I don't claim to know enough about military tactics or the capabilities of Trident to make a case for or against. The key is the ability to respond to, and therefore hopefully deter, a variety of threats. Given the lead-time for the introduction of any new nuclear capability, it's likely that national relationships will have changed dramatically by the time any new weapons system is ready for deployment. It's equally likely that the nature of the threat will also have changed - we can have a guess, but the bottom line is that we're in the territory of Donald Rumsfeld's 'known unknowns' or maybe even 'unknown unknowns' - hence the need for flexibility in our nuclear response capability, irrespective of how that's achieved.
 
 
Unixman said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
I am going to disagree here... Firstly the sheer cost of £21billion (at present - it will rise it always does) is just too much for the services to carry. I know that Trident is considered to be a national asset and comes out of the MoD budget rather than the Navy's but it still a huge amount, especially given the cost of the two new aircraft carriers. Secondly, and this refers to the carriers: it is my view that expeditionary warfare will be the norm for the foreseeable future - given the changing patterns of warfare to what Rupert Smith in his book "Utility of Force" called "wars amongst people" and hence the ability to power project is much more important than having the ultimate deterrent. We will not be able to guarantee having use of friendly airfields close by the theatre of operations and having a carrier or two would be of far far more use to operations than a Trident sub. (BTW the same argument also applies to the "heavy army" - the armoured regiments of Charley 2 tanks - resources should be swung to the infantry) . I don't believe that we can afford both the carriers and the subs so given the current nature of warfare the carriers MUST come first. As for for Trident being the ultimate deterrent, there would be only a few states now that would even contemplate using nukes and these would be rogue states such as Iran or N. Korea. The issue I have - and its a selfish one I agree - is whether they would attack us with nuclear weapons - and frankly I don't believe they would. Trident would be of no use whatsoever against terrorists armed with nuclear weapons (the basic designs of which are openly available) since they wouldn't care about retailaton. Would we take out, say, Teheran, if an Iranian based terrorist group attacked the UK? On balance I am coming to the conclusion that Trident must go ....
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 2 May 2009
Take a child from birth; train it as you would a guard dog in complete obedience. Indoctrinate the child with paranoid idelogy in hate. At a given time, send the child that is skilfully programmed out to be a suicide bomber, and to kill thousands of people.This is not science fiction, this concept of war is the truth. What the hell good is Trident.
 
 
 
Contact Nadine
Nadine Dorries MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
via e-mail at: nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk
or Telephone on 020 7219 5928

 
My Recent Posts
Posted Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 12:14
 
Posted Wednesday, 20 September 2017 at 10:44
 
Posted Sunday, 17 September 2017 at 10:09
 
Posted Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 13:27
 
Posted Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 08:30
 
Posted Monday, 12 June 2017 at 11:52
 
Posted Tuesday, 23 May 2017 at 09:34
 
Posted Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 10:49
 
Blog Roll
Conservative Home

Dizzy Thinks

Guido Fawkes

Cranmer

Iain Dale

Spectator Coffee House

Political Betting

Politics Home

John Redwood

Dan Hannan

Douglas Carswell

 

Blog Archive