This House would replace Trident

The Trident Weapons System while it may be a "horrific part of our system" is still necessary even in today’s post-Cold War world. Firstly through deterrence it protects us from being blackmailed by any other states, and in particular so called "rogue states" like North Korea and potentially in the future Iran who could threaten our vital interests – such as closing the straits of Hormuz.[1]

Moreover having a second strike capability, the ability for nuclear weapons to survive a nuclear assault by an opponent so allowing retaliation, is also still necessary.[2] It may currently seem unlikely that any of the major nuclear armed states will threaten the United Kingdom however we do not know what may happen in the future and by the time a threat appears it would be too late to build a new nuclear second strike capability.

[1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006.

[2] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p276

A deterrent is useless if no one thinks it will ever be used. The only conceivable use of Britain’s nuclear deterrent would be in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, and if that has happened then there is little point in firing the missiles as there will be nothing left to save. Any blackmail today is likely to be much smaller, no state is going to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in order to get their way on trade. The only real possibility of nuclear blackmail is by terrorists who could not be deterred by a nuclear armament. 

Currently the UK is recognised as a nuclear power by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty along with the USA, China, France and Russia. All of whom are either modernising or maintaining their current nuclear arsenals. This means to not replace Trident would mean that we'd suffer a severe loss of status in relation to the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. This would also raise questions of whether the UK even deserves its place as a member there as it would show the UK’s declining global role and military power. Other countries that can be considered "more representative" such as India (the world's largest democracy) now would be an obvious replacement at the top table.[1]

Churchill said that the H bomb that it was "our badge to the Royal Enclosure [at Ascot]"[2] and today Trident remains one of our master keys to the Britain’s status at organisations such as the United Nations Security Council. There are already plenty of reasons why other countries might be more deserving of a security council place than the UK; we don’t need to add another.

[1] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p273

[2] Adamson, Samuel H., ‘Supreme Effort: A lesson in British decline’, BC Journal, Vol. 16, 2010.

Status in the world is not based upon having one extremely powerful weapon; there are much more important factors such as a country’s economy and use of diplomacy. Britain would still be a major financial centre, a major economy, a member of the UNSC (which is not based on nuclear weapons) as well as being one of the biggest contributors to peace and security in the world through peacekeeping and aid.

‘Status’ is one of the popular justifications for acquiring nuclear weapons. However while countries like North Korea that develop nuclear weapons may acquire deterrence they don’t gain any more diplomatic clout. Britain giving up its deterrent or combining it into a European deterrent would help to undermine this perception by showing that nuclear weapons are not needed to maintain a powerful role in the world. 

The UK nuclear weapons programme was first created in late 1945 a time when people were concerned about the US commitment to Europe which was uncertain as the rise of the Iron Curtain had not been yet apparent. Currently if we didn't replace trident and disarmed more likely than not we would fall under the American strategic nuclear umbrella which would be fair enough in the short term and medium term as the relationship is currently strong despite certain cobblestones. A similar thing also applies with the French

But can we really rely on the Americans to keep that umbrella extended over the long term when their interests and emphasis may shift, regardless of cultural or ideological links? Relying on someone else’s deterrent will always be risky as the US or France would not want to put themselves at risk of being attacked in order to deter an attack on us.[1] An independent deterrence arsenal is necessary to maintain deterrence.

[1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006, p.18.

We already rely on the USA for our Trident missile systems so our ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ is already a fiction. The USA can at the moment easily pull the rug out from underneath us. While the UK maintains command and control over its weapons the United States is needed to keep the weapons operational. This means we are reliant on the United States one way or the other anyway.

The Trident Weapons System while it may be a "horrific part of our system" is still necessary even in today’s post-Cold War world. Firstly through deterrence it protects us from being blackmailed by any other states, and in particular so called "rogue states" like North Korea and potentially in the future Iran who could threaten our vital interests – such as closing the straits of Hormuz.[1]

Moreover having a second strike capability, the ability for nuclear weapons to survive a nuclear assault by an opponent so allowing retaliation, is also still necessary.[2] It may currently seem unlikely that any of the major nuclear armed states will threaten the United Kingdom however we do not know what may happen in the future and by the time a threat appears it would be too late to build a new nuclear second strike capability.

[1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006.

[2] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p276

A deterrent is useless if no one thinks it will ever be used. The only conceivable use of Britain’s nuclear deterrent would be in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, and if that has happened then there is little point in firing the missiles as there will be nothing left to save. Any blackmail today is likely to be much smaller, no state is going to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in order to get their way on trade. The only real possibility of nuclear blackmail is by terrorists who could not be deterred by a nuclear armament. 

Currently the UK is recognised as a nuclear power by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty along with the USA, China, France and Russia. All of whom are either modernising or maintaining their current nuclear arsenals. This means to not replace Trident would mean that we'd suffer a severe loss of status in relation to the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. This would also raise questions of whether the UK even deserves its place as a member there as it would show the UK’s declining global role and military power. Other countries that can be considered "more representative" such as India (the world's largest democracy) now would be an obvious replacement at the top table.[1]

Churchill said that the H bomb that it was "our badge to the Royal Enclosure [at Ascot]"[2] and today Trident remains one of our master keys to the Britain’s status at organisations such as the United Nations Security Council. There are already plenty of reasons why other countries might be more deserving of a security council place than the UK; we don’t need to add another.

[1] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p273

[2] Adamson, Samuel H., ‘Supreme Effort: A lesson in British decline’, BC Journal, Vol. 16, 2010.

Status in the world is not based upon having one extremely powerful weapon; there are much more important factors such as a country’s economy and use of diplomacy. Britain would still be a major financial centre, a major economy, a member of the UNSC (which is not based on nuclear weapons) as well as being one of the biggest contributors to peace and security in the world through peacekeeping and aid.

‘Status’ is one of the popular justifications for acquiring nuclear weapons. However while countries like North Korea that develop nuclear weapons may acquire deterrence they don’t gain any more diplomatic clout. Britain giving up its deterrent or combining it into a European deterrent would help to undermine this perception by showing that nuclear weapons are not needed to maintain a powerful role in the world. 

The UK nuclear weapons programme was first created in late 1945 a time when people were concerned about the US commitment to Europe which was uncertain as the rise of the Iron Curtain had not been yet apparent. Currently if we didn't replace trident and disarmed more likely than not we would fall under the American strategic nuclear umbrella which would be fair enough in the short term and medium term as the relationship is currently strong despite certain cobblestones. A similar thing also applies with the French

But can we really rely on the Americans to keep that umbrella extended over the long term when their interests and emphasis may shift, regardless of cultural or ideological links? Relying on someone else’s deterrent will always be risky as the US or France would not want to put themselves at risk of being attacked in order to deter an attack on us.[1] An independent deterrence arsenal is necessary to maintain deterrence.

[1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006, p.18.

We already rely on the USA for our Trident missile systems so our ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ is already a fiction. The USA can at the moment easily pull the rug out from underneath us. While the UK maintains command and control over its weapons the United States is needed to keep the weapons operational. This means we are reliant on the United States one way or the other anyway.

Britain is in the longest recession it has ever been in – longer even than the great depression of the 1930s – with the economy not having recovered to pre-recession levels four years after the start of the downturn.[1] This is obviously completely the wrong time to be wasting money on ruinously expensive new weapons systems.  The cost of replacing trident is disputed with the Government saying it would be between £15 and £20 billion[2] but campaign group Greenpeace puts the total cost at £97billion once running costs over the missiles thirty year lifetime are included.[3] Both figures are incredibly costly for a system which we hope we won’t ever have to use and for which we have allies with similar systems. The money should instead be spent on helping to get the economy moving or services that benefit society such as health and education.

[1] Oxlade, Andrew, ‘Economy watch: What caused the return to recession and how long will it last?’, This is Money.co.uk, 4 May 2012.

[2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Trident replacement’, 22 September 2010.

[3] Greenpeace, ‘£97billion for Trident: five times government estimates’, 18 September 2009.

A state of the art nuclear weapons system is always going to be costly and no one wants to cut corners for the risks that could create. Yet it is money well spent when compared to the damage which would be caused if Britain was attacked due to not having a nuclear deterrent. 

Britain as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty the United Kingdom is obliged to pursue “nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”[1] While complete disarmament by all states with nuclear weapons is a long way off the United Kingdom could make a good start by getting rid of its own weapons. A Nuclear Weapons state giving up its weapons after sixty years would show that nations can manage without nuclear weapons and so act as an encouragement to others to do the same.

[1] ‘Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, International Atomic Energy Agency, INFCIRC/140, 22 April 1970, Article VI.

One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm.

When the United Kingdom first tested Nuclear Weapons in 1952 she was still a great power with a large empire to defend. In the early 1980s when trident was being conceived[1] the UK fought a war with Argentina and the Cold War was perhaps at its deepest following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Country was therefore in an international situation in which nuclear weapons were potentially required to deter the Soviet Union.

A study of the vulnerability of Nuclear Weapons states shows that the UK is the least vulnerable nuclear weapons state because the country is surrounded by allies and is nowhere near any states that may potentially become failed states.[2] The only conclusion from this can be that the UK no longer has any need for nuclear weapons.

[1] Fairhall, David, ‘£5 billion Trident deal is agreed’, The Guardian, 16 July 1980.

[2] Asal, Victor, and Early, Bryan, ‘Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?’, Foreign Policy, 24 May 2012.

That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally.

The world is not yet a safe place there are many unstable states, such as North Korea, developing nuclear weapons capabalities. Beyond these dangers it is easily conceivable that the world will once again face tensions similar to those of the cold war. Given the length of time it would take to rearm should such tensions occur Britain would be safer to keep its nuclear armament. 

Britain tries to maintain that it has an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ but this is just a fiction. Britain has not had an independent nuclear deterrent for fifty years. The United Kingdom has used American missiles since the Polaris Sales Agreement of 6 April 1963 first with the United States supplying Polaris missiles and then Trident missiles.[1] The UK does not own its missiles, they are leased, and the UK is completely dependent on the US for the maintenance of the missiles and even for targeting data.[2] The United States certainly appears to consider Britain’s deterrent to be dependent on them; wikileaks revealed that the US handed over the serial numbers of the missiles it transfers to the UK over to Russia to help the Russians verify the number of UK missiles.[3]

[1] Jimmy Carter: "Sale of Trident I Missiles to the United Kingdom Exchange of Letters Between the President and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. ," July 14, 1980. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

[2] ‘UK’s Trident system not truly independent’, Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence, 7 March 2006.

[3] ‘Geneva: Agreed statements meeting, 10Geneva135 26 February 2010’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2011.

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons.[1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.