Trident and feudalism

Have I got this right? The decision to renew Trident has been taken by a man who: has no military qualifications; was appointed for entirely different reasons; and whose last major decision on military matters is not widely regarded as a glorious success. Meanwhile, a sensible way of deciding whether to buy a public good lies completely unused.
And if this isn't mad enough, few people  - exceptions here and here - so much as remark upon the cretinism of this as a way of deciding how to spend upwards of £20 billion.
The belief that "leadership" is the only way to take decisions has conquered us so completely that we can't even see any alternatives.
In this sense, we're still stuck in feudalism, where no-one questions the divine right of hierarchy. It's as if droit de seigneur never disappeared.

Comments

[dearieme]

Droit de Seigneur? You've been watching too many films of cylindrical objects being hurled from tubes in a cloud of smoke.... Or perhaps you've been running them backwards?

[mat]

Of all things, why are you concerned about this? Almost all libertarians agree that defence is one of the legitimate functions of the minimal state. Don't you? Given that there is some uncertainty about future threats, it makes sense to maintain a continual nuclear deterrent. So we'll have to replace the Vanguard-class subs sooner or later. £20bn over 17 years for SSBNs (nuclear ballistic missile subs) that will last until 2050 is quite reasonable. It's not like the government is blindly throwing away money - they're reducing the number of SSBNs from 4 to 3, and the number of Trident missiles from 200 to 160.
I suppose some sort of public choice mechanism could be used in such decisions, but there would be serious flaws. If voters were to allocate only £13bn, we'd be left with only 2 SSBNs, which would be pointless because that wouldn't constitute a continual nuclear deterrent.
Moreover, I hate mechanisms like Vickrey-Clarke-Groves because they distract people from the real issues. You can use VCG to ask how much the government should spend on scientific research, and you'll get some figure like £5bn. But you should really be asking whether the government should spend anything in the first place.
I like your blog very much, but I don't think the decision to renew Trident (and get the new subs for it) can be attacked from an anti-managerialism or anti-blind-faith-in-leadership perspective. Any Conservative leader - Thatcher, Major, Cameron - would have made the same decision.

[james higham]

Chris, you are passing over what was said below under the 'managerialism'post. You say:

...The belief that "leadership" is the only way to take decisions has conquered us so completely that we can't even see any alternatives...

Leadership is not making unilateral decisions without expertise. No one in a viable business in a managerial position would do such a thing. Of course he'll access expertise and nourish talent [better than outsourcing]. Of course the teams technically under him will give their recommendations and he'd be an idiot not to listen.

This is what leadership is but you have some idea that corporate 'leadership' is what the pollies do. They're two separate issues. Sure the pollies commit stupidities like the Trident thing but why tar all 'leadership', as a concept,with the same brush?

When we employed people in south London, there were four of us on a panel and all inputted and what's more, we made damned sure there was no one on the staff already who could 'grow' into the position. My own elevation [earlier] was a gamble on the recommendation of two panel members and the 'boss' actually voted agin.

The ideal you see in a team managerial structure can be very closely approximated by a good leader accessing all avalable talent - that is, a good facilitator. One of the primary functions of the manager is that he takes the heat. The buck stops with him. Is he likely to run a cavalier show if his hide is on the line?

[Shuggy]

I get the sense you think the decision to renew trident is unwise. This may well be so, and I happen to think it is. But the mechanism by which this decision has been made can't sensibly be described as 'feudalism'.

[Shuggy]

Btw, slightly off topic but have you considered whether the political inequality inherent in representative democracy might not be justified by Rawls' difference principle?

[Planeshift]

It can also hardly be described as democratic, seeing as the contracts have been signed before any public announcement or debate. 20 billion for a national penis extension that serves no strategic purpose is hardly a legitimate use of taxpayers money.

The notion that we should keep them just in case is also flawed. You don't even need actual weapons to have a deterent, you just need the capability to develop them should such a threat arise. Currently there is no threat that nukes solve, so we should go "virtual nuclear" until such time as an actual threat emerges.

[mat]

Planeshift,
It's a fair point that we could have had a bit more debate before committing to renewing Trident, but your "virtual nuclear" proposal is ridiculous... No-one is going to be deterred by a country that says, 'hang on for 4-5 (or more) years while we build a nuke to bomb you'.

[Darrell Twineham]

I have a cunning plan me lud!

When the terrorists threaten to invade why don't we bomb all our own cities. That really would be a nuclear deterrent.

[Tim Worstall]

I don't think you can describe this as feudalism. After all, the defining feature of that system was that the one making the decisions was in fact the most able (or bloodthirsty perhaps) warrior. If he wasn't, then someone would be along soon enough to dispossess him.

[chris]

Sorry chaps, I should clarify. For the purposes of this post, my view on the substantive matter of Trident is irrelevant. I'm just wondering about the process.
James - you're defining "leadership" away. Making unilateral decisions without expertise is precisely what leaders do, which is precisely what I was complaining about.
Mat - of course defence is a legitimate function of the state. That makes it all the more important that the decision on the precise nature of theat defence be taken rigorously.The problem of "lumpy goods" can easily be tackled within a demand-revealing process - in your example, a vote for only £13bn of deterrent would be, in effect, a vote for no deterrent.

[Planeshift]

"but your "virtual nuclear" proposal is ridiculous..."

why?

Its exactly the same policy as Canada, the Scandanavian countries, most of europe, South Africa, Japan, several latin american countries and many others. All of whom could produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months but choose not to. Should any of these countries ever face a serious threat that could be deterred by nukes they wouldn't hesitate to build them. Until we face a serious threat where nukes come in useful then spending 20 billion is a waste. There are better uses for it.