Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Nuclear deterrent could be scrapped in 5 or 10 years, says former Army chief Sir Richard Dannatt

un interessante (anche se io non lo condivido totalmente) punto di vista sul 
futuro del deterrente nucleare britannico.
A mio avviso ci vorr� sempre un deterrente nucleare, se non altro finch� ci 
sono paesi che lo utilizzano come arma di ricatto, come l'Iran...
---------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253107/Nuclear-deterrent-scrapped-5-10-years-says-Army-chief-Sir-Richard-Dannatt.html
Nuclear deterrent could be scrapped in 5 or 10 years, says former Army chief 
Sir Richard Dannatt
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:19 AM on 23rd February 2010
Britain may no longer need its independent nuclear deterrent in five or ten 
years' time, a former head of the Army said today.
Former Chief of General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt said the judgment 
that the UK should press ahead with renewing the Trident deterrent was right 
at the present moment, but only 'on a very narrow points decision'.
Future changes in global conditions could render it unnecessary within a 
matter of years, he suggested.
Sir Richard also called for the decision on when to hold a strategic review 
of national defence needs to be taken out of the Government's hands, 
favouring a system like the quadrennial review in the U.S., which 
automatically triggers a process every four years.
Former prime minister Tony Blair won Parliament's backing in 2007 for the 
�20billion renewal of the submarine-based Trident nuclear missile system, 
which expires in 2024.
But Sir Richard - who is a defence adviser to the Conservatives, who also 
back Trident replacement - today said that the need for the Cold War-era 
deterrent may have disappeared by the time the date for its renewal comes 
round.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'None of the major parties seems to 
have an appetite for not continuing with an independent nuclear deterrent at 
the present moment. On balance - on a very narrow points decision - that is 
probably right for now.
'It might not be right in five or ten years' time.
'We have to evaluate every major issue like that in the circumstances of the 
time. We can't predict where we will be in five, ten or 15 years' time - 
whether the world will become more proliferated or we will have a greater 
move towards non-proliferation.
'At the present time, I think the judgment is right that on balance we 
should continue with an independent nuclear deterrent.'
Both Labour and the Conservatives say that they will hold a strategic 
defence review soon after this year's general election if they win - 13 
years after the last one in 1997.
But Sir Richard said that politics should be taken out of the process of 
planning Britain's future defence needs by making the reviews a regular 
event.
'One of the things that must come out of this defence review is a 
realisation that only having defence reviews when the government of the day 
says we ought to have one is probably a mistake,' he said.
'The American system of a quadrennial - once every four years - defence 
review makes a lot of sense.
'It takes the politics out of defence, because the point about having 
regular reviews is, as the world circumstances and situation change, you can 
decide and decide again.'
Sir Richard added: 'A number of us feel that defence of the realm should 
stand above political, inter-service and industrial (issues).
'This debate has to focus on the character and nature of future conflict. 
What are the likely threats our country is going to face?
'Allied to that, what is our national ambition? Do we want to stay as we are 
or become more ambitious or less ambitious? That will lead us to what 
capabilities our defence should have, what our force structure should be and 
what our equipment programme should be and that will tell us where we should 
spend our limited resources.'
Recent public comments by the heads of the Army and Royal Navy have 
indicated a struggle developing within the military over whether the 
constrained finances likely to be available in the coming period should be 
spent on getting 'boots on the ground' in places such as Afghanistan or 
investing in expensive pieces of kit such as aircraft carriers.
Sir Richard insisted the forces chiefs were '80 per cent  to 85 per cent' in 
agreement on what was needed.
But he added: '(Afghanistan) has predominantly been fighting by our land 
forces... It is logical to say there should be an uplift in those resources 
we need to be successful in Afghanistan.'
And he warned that the nature of fighting in Afghanistan was unlikely to be 
an 'aberration' but a signpost to how Britain's military capabilities will 
be needed in the short to medium term.
That suggested that spending should concentrate on the land-based forces and 
helicopter lift capacity which have proved most vital to success in 
Afghanistan, while investing 'to the maximum extent possible - but less than 
we would probably like - in some of those other and rather more expensive 
capabilities that would give us a full balance force'. 

 europeo, a quello che diventerebbe un ombrello nucleare comune.
in questo senso io sarei totalmente d'accordo in modo da 1) distribuire la 
spesa su tutti i membri della UE, 2) essere autonomi dagli Usa e 3) 
parimenti avere pi� fondi per l'acquisto di armi convenzionali, mezzi e per 
il potenziamento della flotta.