The row over who should pay for the renewal of the Britain's nuclear deterrent resembles teenager-parent "wordfare" about the purchase of a second hand car. Dad, can I have new nuclear submarines? Sure, but you need to pay for them with your pocket money.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has it that the Trident is a national security issue and thus should not be financed from his department's budget. Treasury Secretary George Osborne has it that paying for Trident's renewal is the Defence's responsibility.

Given the fact that it's £20 billion the row is about, the squabble would have occurred even in less financially challenging times. Earlier this week General Richard Dannatt said that the British army almost "seized up" in 2006 due to simultaneous involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The need to find 10-20% savings in the defence budget now spices things up.

Liam Fox certainly makes a valid point playing the national security card. National healthcare, however, is a matter of national importance too and Mr Fox would certainly object to subsidizing the Department of Health. In other words, national security needs to be financed by Liam Fox's department.

Finding that £20 billion will be very difficult and reducing the number of Trident submarines from four to three, as proposed by Mr Fox, may not be enough.

It appears to be a question of priorities then. But since neither nuclear nor conventional forces can be underfunded the question of budget priorities suddenly becomes an issue of national defence strategy. Which seems to be something at least parts of the government try to avoid.

The need for a radical reassessment of UK long term strategic defence and security objectives have never been more urgent. Or more sensible, for that matter.

That is, unless the Conservative part of the coalition government plans to rely on "communities" and "Big Society" to finance the Trident.

Kristian Klima

Photo: ISIFA