It's the year 1415 and the English have just routed the French at Agincourt despite being outnumbered twenty to one.
Very impressive even if the French troops were masterminded by King Charles the Mad, a man who believed he was made of glass and who forgot which side he on was during one battle and killed 8 of his own soldiers before being overpowered and held down by his knights until he fell asleep.
Not the toughest foe we ever crossed swords with but the English and the French have a proud history of pounding each other.
Almost 600 years on from Henry V hacking his way across Normandy, the French and English are considering combining military forces in a new alliance.
Due to drastic military cuts in both the countries, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy are to meet up in November to discuss the possibility of a shared Anglo-French nuclear deterrent.
It is an idea that has been mooted before but has proved so politically explosive both here and across the channel that it always forced the politicians to backpedal faster than footage of a Tour de France cyclist on 16x rewind.
Things are different now though with Dave slashing things like a posh Freddie Kruger on speed and admitting that although he wanted to replace our aging nuclear deterrent, "one had to adjust one's sights" to achieve it.
The little englanders may moan but there are far worse countries we could be getting into bed with in a military sense. That said there are far better countries also but Switzerland wouldn't want us trampling all over their pristine alps with our muddy boots.
Of course the ideal would be we scrap the nuclear weapons altogether and spend the billions on proper things instead but why would either place need hospitals when we can both have some gleaming new weapons we won't ever use rusting away on a submarine in Brittany or Southampton instead?
Maybe we can arrange some more closer ties with the Frenchies. We lend them some decent musicians and actors in exchange for them teaching us that wonderful ability to not give a rats what anyone else thinks of them.
As Henry V said 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more'
As Charles the mad said 'Don't stand so close, I've just been polished'.
5 comments:
Interesting stuff, Lucy. I find it quite ironic that France, although in many respects more 'left wing' than the UK, has never experienced much internal debate about the wisdom of them keeping their own independent nuclear deterrent. They all seem to love it. They realise it’s one of the main things that keeps them invited “to the table” to discuss matters of international import.
Whereas we in the UK, of course, have loads of dissent about it. Generally speaking, the British liberal-left would like us to ditch it completely.
This is a bad idea, I think. Sure the Cold War is over, but the number of nuclear armed states (some of them hostile to the west) could conceivably rise to a couple of dozen during the next few decades – to say nothing of the danger of non-state actors getting hold of them. Factor in the uncertainty surrounding the global roles of China, Russia, and the increasing likelihood of a more isolationist, more bankrupt, USA (for whom ‘the special relationship’ is just one of those things you say to spineless drips like Tony Blair to make him do your bidding) and it’s clear that a 'hedging your bets' policy wouldn't be a bad one.
The thing is, maintaining a deterrent to others is not about what’s happening NOW (when things may-or-may-not look benign); it's about the future i.e. a time when things may be very, very different. Look at how things have changed just in the last 60 years. Or even just the last 10. It's a bad idea to adopt a utopian "she'll be right" attitude when the geo-strategic situation is so volatile. I think it's also naive to suppose that the state would automatically busy themselves building hospitals for the sick or schools for the poor, if we suddenly had all the money that we spend on Trident. I'm afraid things just don't work like that.
However, I'm not so charmed by the French combined deterrent idea either. Sure our basic values are similar, but we also disagree regularly and vociferously. I think there are ways of keeping Britain's nuclear deterrence without going down this road. An idea I’ve heard is to scale down our navy, only just continuing to adhere to the doctrine of CASD (Continuous at Sea Deterrence). Conceivably, this could still be achieved by a skeleton crew of 3 frigates and 3 subs. No need for a super-expensive ‘like for like’ Trident replacement in these financially straightened times. But no need to abandon independence in this crucial area of statehood either.
I'm firmly in the ban it camp Cheezy. I see keeping nuclear weapons as a political decision with no military value.
Firstly, it is a crazy amount of money to spend on something we will almost certainly never use. Hard to justify the expense while we are talking about a 25% reduction in the police and fire service. Knowing we could destroy a nation in the blink of an eye is no comfort if you have your car stolen or your house burns down.
Secondly, when would we ever use it? America still gets berated for using them during a World War and if you can't use them then without being hauled over the coals for it decades later, when can you use it?
Thirdly, the big threat is terrorist groups and nuclear weapons are no use against them.
Fourthly and finally, we have the technology, that can't be unlearned, so why have a ready made nuclear arsenal at all? It isn't as if we won't have any warning if a nuclear armed country is threatening us. It will rumble on and build up over time so why not dismantle them and only put them together when and if we need them. Why keep something hanging around costing billions a year if we can put it to one side at a fraction of the cost. If we never have to use it, it costs next to nothing.
Great punch line. Gave me a good laugh.... So, who gets to push the button?
Lucy,
i agree that getting grid of nuclear weapons is ideal.
i don't know that i would want the government to continue taking my money and giving it to others though. how about lowering taxes and letting keep some of the freaking money that i earn by working 55+ hours every week!
do brits really care what other people think? yawl had me fooled...
q
"and letting keep some of the freaking money that i earn by working 55+ hours every week!"
They don't let you keep any of the money you earn? Shite! I thought tax rates were steep over here...!!!
Post a Comment