By Jason Moore
THE question has been raised whether Britain should replace its ageing nuclear deterrent. The money would be better spent on Britain's failing public services because I can see little or no reason for Britain maintaining a nuclear capability. In fact, I think Trident should be just the tip of the iceberg with a major defence review which should lead to extensive military cuts so that the armed services are better equipped to fight the so-called war on terror rather than having a large standing army equipped for a by-gone era. When Britain finally disengages itself from Iraq and Afghanistan I can't see the British armed services ever again being involved in conflicts of this type which involve large numbers of soldiers and equipment. While Suez may have been a watershed which ended Britain's days as a super-power I suspect that Iraq and Afghanistan will mark the end of British military intervention abroad. Times have changed and the military needs to change as well. Perhaps, a sort of Home Guard style defence force, involved in the war on terrorism and, if possible fighting illegal immigration is where the future of the British military lies. Spending enormous sums of money on new jets, tanks and submarines is not the way forward. While generals worry about the effect Iraq and Afghanistan have had on their troops perhaps they should also start to ponder the future when they exit Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't see any reason for maintaining a large standing army equipped for conflicts they will never have to fight.


To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and be logged in.

* Mandatory fields

Currently there are no comments.