By Nuclear weapons have been part of the UK's defence programme since 1952, with Trident in place since 1994. The arguments for and against the UK having a nuclear weapons system have rumbled on for a long time - but now, with the deep cuts being inflicted by the coalition, it is time to look more closely at the moral and economic justifications for maintaining Trident.
Trident consists of four nuclear submarines, of which there is one on active duty at all times. Each of the Trident submarines can carry forty-eight nuclear warheads with an explosive power of up to 100 kilotonnes. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945, had an estimated power of 12 - 15 kilotonnes. The true number of people it killed will probably never be known, but estimates of the five-year death toll exceed 200,000 people.
In 1968 the British Government ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, (NPT); currently 189 countries have done so and as part of this, they agree to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, to work towards complete nuclear disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Indeed, Article VI of the treaty states:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
So the UK has an obligation to actively pursue disarmament. With Trident requiring such enormous investment, what a perfect opportunity to do so, yet the Coalition insists it is committed to the renewal of Trident and Liam Fox has insisted that he will not include it in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that is underway.
The cost of replacing the Trident submarines is estimated at £20billion and estimates for the lifetime cost of maintenance of the system exceed £80billion, so surely with the level of cuts being imposed by this government across the board, Trident must be included in the SDSR.
In June, Dr Liam Fox promised that the nuclear element of our defence systems was safe from the chancellor's axe and recently he was still stating that it would not be included in the general defence budget. Yet now George Osborne says:
"I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget."
So which is it? With public spending being cut to the bone and the effect that will have on the lives of the public, is it right to prioritise a not-likely-to-be-used nuclear weapons programme? Do we actually need a nuclear submarine on active patrol at all times?
Osborne has opened up another dilemma for Fox here. If Trident is to be included in the general defence budget, where will he find the money for the equipment and resources needed to supply our troops? As Dr Fox himself admitted, earlier this month:
"To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are currently doing in terms of capability."
Perhaps that is the real reason for the hasty withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan. Is it a choice, Afghanistan or Trident?
Nonetheless, it definitely is a choice of which has greater priority between Trident and public services. It is a question that Nick Clegg asked himself last year, and arrived at this conclusion:
Given that we need to ask ourselves big questions about what our priorities are, we have arrived at the view that a like-for-like Trident replacement is not the right thing to do."
This was a flagship Lib Dem policy - and one that many in the Labour Party agreed with. So what changed his mind? Was it again the lure of power? Is this another example of Clegg forfeiting principles for portfolio?
In the current economic climate ordinary people are facing a bleak future of stripped-back public services, job losses and withdrawal of welfare. To push ahead with the replacement of Trident and the financial commitment it requires without a review is irresponsible, a poor use of available funds and, as with many things that the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg are doing, unprincipled.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I agree that we should look at Trident replacement both in terms of our actual defence needs, and in terms of affordability.
I think that one thing we can do is to extend the lifetime of the current subs. The policy of having continuous at-sea deterance needs rethinking. Are we really saying that there can be ANY threat to the existence of the UK which cannot be foreseen with, say 12 hours notice? A submarine could be docked at Faslane on standby, ready to leave port should it be needed, and it could be on station 12 hours later. This alone should extend the lifetime of the current submarines, as well as reducing the running cost of Trident - estimated to be about 5% of the defence budget.
They were designed for a lifespan of 25 years, but work is currently going on in the US to extend their Trident subs to 2040. We should do the same, and with the last sub having been launched in 1998 it should not be impossible to do so.
Principle is OK, with a longer launch period of a couple of weeks, when a crisis first seems possible, but it would then potentially make crises worse if we only dispatch SSBN's to sea when we think we might have to use the payload imminently, and somebody with a dinghy and a pair of binoculars can see when one has gone.
Look no further than the debacle over not ordering equipment for the Iraq invasion to avoid bad press coverage before the invasion actually happened to see how this could fail to work.
It seems to me the problem is relying on a singular boat on station and hoping the French don't ram it, or someone else hasn't found a way to track them without being detected.
The concept probably made sense when Polaris was part of a distributed deterrence system when agreed in 1962, as Blue Streak (land based 1954-1972) and Blue Steel (V-bomber based 1963-1970 ) were in service before, during, and after it's initial introduction.
The replacement, Trident has always been a form of political willy waving, whose real deterrence value is because it's part of a much larger system, all those US SSBN's, and could actually be highly vulnerable in the case we were taking on another power with hunter killer subs and satellites looking for the tell tale signs of our singular boat.
If the issue is how to have weapons in a position where we can be sure some can still be launched in the face of hostile action, the current reliance on a single, boat at sea seems ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as the Germans in WW2 deciding their Enigma system was impossible to decode, so not taking basic precautions.
You are right that a single boat "could be highly vulnerable in the case we were to take on another power with hunter-killer subs and satellites looking for the tell tale signs of our singular boat." Well yes but who is that potential power?
If it is Russia why do we not have 50,000 troops still in Germany or even moved forward to Poland?
If it is China it will be a few more decades before there is a realistic possibility of Chinese Hunter-Killer's operatiing in the North Atlantic.
The only other powers you are describing are the US or France.
Brazil and India have ambitions and in 20 years could prevent us operating near them but even longer till they are a threat in the North Atlantic.
The only possible threat is Russia and if Russia is a threat, today then all of NATO needs to be spending more and planning differently. Russia could well become a threat in the next decade or two but that does not require CASD patrols of Trident today.
We could store all 4 boats semi-permanently at the dockside as the Russians did with most of their fleet for the 1990's. or we could move to a position of ad hoc patrols which would have a boat at sea most of the time but without the guarantee of permanent at sea which would reduce running costs and extend the life of the fleet by years. Or we can carry on with status quo defending against no one because if we don't the Daily Mail will get upset!
The real threat from a bomb smuggled in a container ship from North Korea or Pakistan in future Iran is an irrelevance to this debate. One bomb taking out London does not stop 3 boats worth of missiles destroying the offending state from the dockside.
I think I've made it clear that I don't think Trident is a good idea. In isolation it's too vulnerable by far.
However, if you have it, it should al least be feasible as a system against someone who'd warrant the need for it, and frankly I don't think that's the case.
Nuclear depth charges are a sight easier to make and deploy than missiles. So anything that limits the range of operations negates the need for a SSBN fleet. Hell, even Irish trawlers can catch nuclear subs.
It is interesting that you think that SSN's which that by design can circumnavigate the globe submerged at top speed can't be deployed globally.
However, as you make clear, it isn't obvious who the potential agressor is.
However, I think you are assuming every potential enemy possesses the strategic genius of the Japanese guys who decided to attack Pearl Harbour, and thought the American's would react because they wouldn't be able to, if you think someone would pass up the chance to knock out Faslane with all the boats lined up in a row before the main event.
This is the elephant in the room. The only countries with the ability to pose a nuclear threat to us are so powerful that our "deterrent" is irrelevant. We only keep it because politicians want a seat at the nuclear table.
I suspect I'm coming at this from a slightly different point of view.
Does anyone really think any of the three services would NOT take the choice of increased conventional capability over Trident any day.
It's quite clear why. If your conventional forces are defeated, what other options are left. Trident renewal undermines the conventional forces. Therefore it increases risk.
Given that the deterrent effect of Trident consists of sticking all our eggs in one basket, i.e. one boat on patrol, it's not exactly secure. Take last years accident for instance, when the the French missile sub collided with the RN sub and thereby deprived both countries of their deterrent in one fell swoop.
Modern thinking tends to favour the more robust solution of a distributed deterrence system where any number of RN vessels, or aircraft, can carry nuclear devices, such as cruise missiles, and therefore avoids the situation where knocking out one vessel removes the deterrent.
That distributed deterrence would cost a whole lot less, and thereby not cripple the conventional forces ability to avoid a situation where we had to use it.
Trident is ultimately a purely political weapon and it's maintenance should not be at the expense of the real defence budget.
Well said.