Results 1-5 of 5 for trident speaker:Margaret Beckett

Point of Order: Trident (14 Mar 2007)

Margaret Beckett: ...based on our own experience and that of other allied nuclear weapon states. Moreover, we must also decide whether we will join the American programme to extend to the early 2040s the life of the Trident D5 ballistic missiles which those Vanguard submarines currently carry, and whether we will reduce the number of our operationally available warheads to fewer than 160 by the end of this year.

Point of Order: Trident (14 Mar 2007)

Margaret Beckett: .... We estimate that the procurement costs are likely on average to be the equivalent of about 3 per cent. of the current defence budget over the main period of expenditure—roughly the same as for the Trident programme. That investment will not come at the expense of the conventional capabilities that our armed forces need.

Point of Order: Trident (14 Mar 2007)

Margaret Beckett: .... Moreover, those whom that stance leads to oppose this decision should, by that yardstick, have opposed all previous nuclear procurements. Some, I know, have; some, I suspect, have not. To others, Trident is just a waste of money. In one sense, I hope to God they are right. Nothing would please me or the Government more than to have a nuclear deterrent that was never used, and whose use...

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence: Trident (26 Jun 1984)

Miss Margaret Beckett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of Trident acquisition.

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence: Trident (26 Jun 1984)

Miss Margaret Beckett: As Trident's accuracy makes it a first-strike weapon for use in fighting a nuclear war, and as United States policy has adjusted to meet that change in availability, should not the Secretary of State now admit that either our Government's policy has changed in the same way, or he has wasted the country's money?