The Trident nuclear missile programme is almost paid for there is nothing to be

The Trident nuclear missile programme is almost paid for; there is nothing to be saved by axing it, as there might have been at the last election. The same is almost true of the development costs of the new Eurofighter, and cutting back substantially on the number we order would raise unit costs unacceptably. But there are other big cuts which could be made if radical questions were asked The Royal Marines might merge with the Army. The RAF could be scrapped as a separate force, and replaced by Army and Navy air arms. Our amphibious landing capability could go (we didn't dare use it in the Gulf - hand-held missiles make it too dangerous).

Similar arguments can be made against tanks; attack helicopters can largely perform their role. No replacement for the Tornado bomber need be sought; their job is done by Tomahawk cruise missiles in submarines. The number of frigates and destroyers could be cut from 35 to 25 - the rationale for the marginal 10 is slight.The reality is that hard decisions will have to be made World-wide risk assessments are of limited help Analysts vary in their judgements. Some predict war between Pakistan and India, or Greece and Turkey. Others warn of less-focused dangers - a harsh military clampdown against the people of Hong Kong or the increase in international piracy. Pentagon analysts apparently name the top three threats - inside Russia, China and, surprisingly enough, inside Germany.But the key strategic judgement which must be made centres on the principal partner in our defence alliance No one seriously argues that we can stand alone. So should we simply face up to our dependence on the United States? The pragmatic arguments here are potent - the maintenance of Trident depends on the goodwill of the US So did our expedition to the Falklands.

In the Gulf we relied on the US for both intelligence and heavy transport.One option is to face the consequences of this dependence. We would then not need, says Philip Sabin of the department of war studies at King's College, London, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, anti-ballistic missile systems and our own high-capacity combat aircraft. "We wouldn't then break the bank providing the support capability which the US is happy to give us without risk so long as their troops don't have to go in on the ground and get killed," says John Reed, editor of the influential newsletter Defence Industry.Instead we would provide what we are already best at: command and communications structures, logistics, electronic warfare, medical support, special services SAS skills with more flexible naval forces for moving these more highly- trained or evacuating Britons from foreign trouble spots.But if the pivotal judgement is that Britain should not be beholden to an increasingly isolationist US, then focus should switch to Europe This is an area beset with political problems. A military division of labour - with us providing ships and submarines, the French the aircraft carriers and the Germans the tanks and infantry - is not realistic without a common European defence policy, which would only come with greater political union. Without it the British might veto a French desire to intervene in Algeria or an Italian urge for action to maintain stability in Albania - just as the French might object to a Falklands expedition or the Germans to certain interventions in Bosnia.The only option at present here seems to be to edge towards greater integration of European defence industries, both military and civilian, though in practice collaboration sometimes increases costs rather than cutting them.

It is an uphill task; the American defence industry is already double the size of all Europe's put together. But to move that way would enable savings to be made on those elements in the forces which serve our role in policy areas outside Europe: tanks, amphibious forces and much of our navy.Were Labour to take a step in either direction the savings could be considerable. Defence analysts estimate the European option could knock pounds 3bn to 4bn off the budget over the lifetime of a parliament The US option would be considerably more. It would pay for a lot of schools and hospitals.All the signs are, however, that Labour will not have the nerve to take such a decision. The back-room lobbying of manufacturers and trade unions is potent. And what politician wants to throw half of a marginal seat like Preston out of work? "The risk," says John Reed of Defence Industry, "is that in trying to get the best of both worlds they will end up with the worst of both, and that the real day of decision will be postponed.". Dear Chris Dunkley, I hope you don't mind my writing to you openly like this, but the last time I wrote to you at Feedback you never got my letter. Feedback is the splendid Radio 4 programme on which you, Chris Dunkley, allow radio listeners to fulminate at each other and at the BBC (and sometimes shower praise) (Sorry if this sounds a bit like Sue Lawley ...

"So, Chris Dunkley, what's your next record ...?")Occasionally, when enough complaints accumulate, you will wheel in a bigwig to defend the BBC (and sometimes admit blame). It would be nice to think that Feedback also caused the BBC to think again sometimes, though I don't remember this ever happening.Now, though I love the BBC dearly, I am maddened by some of its decisions, and I am above all maddened by the way Jazz Notes has been shifted to a remote ghetto.This programme goes out most weekdays and presents half an hour of excellent music, reviews and interviews. Unfortunately, although it used to go out at a reasonable time, it now goes out at 12.30am on Radio 3, when most people including me are unconscious. Although Nicholas Kenyon, Radio 3's boss, has never admitted this, the only reason for choosing this time must be to lose listeners so that he can turn round later and say, "I'm afraid jazz listening figures are going down, so it's hardly worth broadcasting as much as we do." No other reasons bear scrutiny.I had been toying with the idea of writing to Feedback about this when a stroke of luck gave me a good reason to do so. I had managed to tape an edition of Jazz Notes to listen to later, a solo concert by the wonderful Scottish pianist Dave Newton, as I remember I listened to it and found a curious thing. Somewhere in the middle of his pianistics, a voice suddenly broke in announcing that a great new record was coming right up ...! Not part of the Dave Newton recital, I realised, but Radio 2 being broadcast by mistake on the Radio 3 frequency. It only lasted 10 seconds or so, but still, it was a cock-up by any standards.And I had it on tape.