The conventional Trident may be dead, but nuclear Tridents have sparked a heated debate over the future of the UK’s nuclear weapons.
Submarine-launched Trident missiles have been Britain’s only nuclear option for almost a decade – the UK never had independent ground-launch capabilities, and all the British air-delivered nuclear weapons were dismantled by 1998. The missiles are built, maintained, and serviced in the U.S., but Britain insists that it maintains operational independence.
Today, the British Tridents are based on four Vanguard-class submarines, which are aging and due to be decommissioned in the 2020s. Since the government believes that new subs will take 17 years to design and build, a decision needs to be made. If Britain does not build new subs, it will lose its independent nuclear deterrent force.
Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government could have made the decision on its own, but opted instead to open the issue for debate and let Parliament decide – a vote is scheduled for March 2007.
Supporters of renewing the Trident say that 1) no other nuclear states are considering eliminating their arsenals, 2) the number of nuclear states is increasing, 3) the world is a risky place, 4) it is impossible to predict whether the Tridents will be needed, so it is better to retain them. These arguments together seem to say, essentially, that in an uncertain, dangerous world, it is better to have nukes than not (shhh – don’t tell Iran!).
Opponents argue that the weapons are 1) unnecessary (Britain’s role in the world no longer requires nukes), 2) ineffective (deterrence is an “unproven theory” that is “essentially flawed,” especially when it comes to terror), 3) expensive (roughly £20 billion that could be better spent elsewhere), 4) illegal (in violation of Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which obligates each signatory to work towards nuclear disarmament), and 5) immoral.
The Scots have been particularly virulent in their criticisms – this is partially tied up in British regional politics but also stems from the fact that the Trident submarines’ only base is located in Scotland. Scottish officials have drafted two provocative but doomed-to-fail bills: one would criminalize “supporting the threat of the UK’s nuclear deterrent;” the other would charge the British government £1 billion (almost $2 billion) for each nuclear warhead transported through Scottish territory.
Churches and NGOs across the country have voiced their opposition, as well, and polls consistently show a majority of the British public opposed to Trident renewal. Blair has only offered minor concessions – he “wants to” reduce the number of subs and warheads slightly but says the issue needs more study.
If the Trident debate remains binary – renewal vs. no renewal – Blair has more than enough votes to push his proposal through Parliament. There may be a third option, though: delay the decision. U.S. nuclear experts Dick Garwin, Philip E. Coyle (disclosure: my boss), Theodore A. Postol, and Frank von Hippel recently argued that the Vanguard subs can last up to 15 years longer than the government said, with refurbishments and light use. They argue that putting the decision off would be the best way to maintain “a variety of options.” It is unclear whether the government is interested in this option, but over 100 MPs (out of 646) have called for the decision to be delayed.
This will be a debate to watch – if the disarmament advocates succeed, Britain may become the first of the big five nuclear powers to give up its weapons. It looks unlikely in the near future, though.
Good Morning Folks,
Like Putin’s Russia the United Kingdom is falling off the second tier of Nations. Neither country can afford to support the Nuclear Option and for both it time to face reality.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
As a Brit, I agree – our hospitals and public transport systems are falling apart, we don’t have the money to waste on hypocritical ‘we need them to be safe’ weapons.
Disclaimer: http://www.rachaelandtom.info/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=10164&g2_serialNumber=2
“As a Brit, I agree – our hospitals and public transport systems are falling apart, we don’t have the money to waste on hypocritical ‘we need them to be safe’ weapons.”
Well, you guys will likely be part of the European Islamic Republic one day-so if you want to give up the nukes now-that’s fine.
The ‘guns versus butter’ argument in not valid for nuclear deterence. The UK must decide if they need operational nuclear weapons or not. My guess, unless there is some sort of EU security collective, they will decide not to renew their nuclear weapons, and become like Japan. They will remain under the US nuclear umbrella. In 20 years, that will leave the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, Israel, and Iran with active nuclear weapons.
Notice I left out DPRK, and included Iran, those two countries have different fates in the next 20 years. DPRK will not exist, and Iran will be the Persian Hegemon and be a counter to Israel.
It’s not about money per se – the £20bn is a small fraction of defence spending, which in turn is a comparatively small percentage of government spending way behind social security, health and education. It’s about whether Trident is needed, and many (most?) people in Brtiain don’t believe that it is.
Given the Labour Party’s long-term involvement with the anti-nuclear cause, Blair’s adherence to Trident is an anomaly – but he has enough support for there not to be any risk in the immediate future.
In the longer run, it’s hard to argue against proliferation on one hand while retaining nuclear weapons on the other. But how many politicians would willingly give up the world’s biggest international virility symbol?
I dont think its a good idea to listen too much to normal medium/lower tier civilian administrators and the public in general in global security issues like this. They simply dont have the background knowledge and worldview needed to assess topics like this.
This nuke issue one of those things you dont want to mess up. A problem is the magnitude of the matter (mega-ton explosions) in combination with the ‘rogue state’ thing. You simply cannot be sure.
But in the normal politics any insecurity will be exploited by ones opponents, because of any conflict will be magnified and polarized. Which is stupid enough in normal politics, but heh, that democracy for you. But the trend in democracy is that its a free-for-all mixed tag team madness: and it’s so easy to score from the anti-nuke position (and very easy to burn yourself when pro-nuke), so dont expected a proper solution, but a somewhat gimped compromise that will A: costs lots of money anyway, and B: wont properly do its job.
Maybe ask the public a question: do you want the military to protect our economy and our livestyle? If yes: give a budget and let usfix things. If not: then its everybody for himself: start digging bunkers and learning Arabic.
Good Morning Folks,
One point that I think that has been missed in this dicussion is that the U.K. doesn’t produce it’s nuclear weapons be it SLICBM’s, Tomahawks, or enen Mark 48’s. They are dependant on the United States for there nuclear capabilities.
The unasked question is, is this where the U.K. really wants to be?
Can the U.S. be relied on, will the Americans alway be on the side of the best interests of the U.K. I doubt that any citizen of the U.K. can honestly say yes to either of these questions.
If the above is true then the only option that would be acceptable to the U. K. would be a nuclear force that is Independent of Washington and fickled American voters who could in any Presidental Election elect a Neo-Calvinist President who firmly beleave that the U.K. is in the bowels of Satin and it’s destruction would be a blessing to all Christians.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“(shhh – don’t tell Iran!).”
oh, yes, Iran and the UK are a lot alike. *rolls eyes*
yeah, lets compare a friendly country with a strong & stable government. To Iran, which harbors terrorists and daily says they want to wipe Israel off the map. Iran would use nukes as a first strike, thats something no sane country would do.
as for the topic: I thnk they should indeed build some new subs, the nuclear deterient is still a good deteriant…although less so today with muslims who want to die and take you with em’.
Hi all.
A few points. Firstly there has been some serious uk government investment (> £1 billion) in the science establishment (specifically the AWE) as well as submarine design yards over the last couple of years, suggesting that the decision is pretty well made already.
The main argument about the timing of the debate now is that if a decision is not made soon the uk will lack the intrinsic industrial capability to make large nuclear-powered submarines, similar to the crisis’ that have followed the astute attack submarine program. By starting any work now industry/science can retain the skills and departments necessary for the longer term. This is not to say that another option – nuclear-tipped cruise missiles launched from sea or air, or ground-based silos, for instance – could not be pursued, but from the evidence presented thus far these would be either much more expensive or give much less capability.
Secondly regarding the ‘independence’ of the system, it is currently stated that yes, the missiles are built and serviced in the USA, but they have british-designed / built warheads attached in the UK and are under sole UK targeting and fire control, which does not require or have an american veto. Similarly the submarines are entirely british designed and built. Whether this is true, I don’t know. The reason for using american missiles was cost. Britain could have followed the French path and designed an entirely native system, but this would have cost 2-3 times what the current system cost.
Thirdly the cost of around £20 billion is the though-life cost, including the four submarines, not including the new / updated trident missile the us has been thinking of. Over 25 years this is not a huge price to pay for the ultimate (and hopefully never needed) insurance policy. As for the comment regarding that the money would be better spent elsewhere, the uk is the fourth richest nation on earth, and we have plenty of tax revenue to sort our issues out, it is a case of criminal mismanagement by this government in particular that has failed to do so, not a case of there being too little money. As a possible compromise in terms of money and capability reduction (i.e. the uk is not expanding its nuclear arsenal etc etc), or at least to give the appearance, the government has suggested only building 3 new submarines rather than 4.
Finally, i think the debate will go with keeping the nuclear deterrent for the reasons that no british government could be seen to be weakening the national defence at such a time of uncertainty and, basically, war, with new nuclear states emerging every year; that no british government would want to leave france as the only european nuclear state for reasons of prestige and politics, similarly the position on the un security council; and that there are powerful industrial pressures to order a new system. I wouldn’t be surprised if the usa would also like for the uk to remain a nuclear power.
Regards!