Nuclear option
The news emerging from this morning's Cabinet will be greeted with disappointment by some and scepticism by others.
I'm told - and not just by the spin doctors - that the Cabinet had a good and serious first discussion about Trident. It should be noted, though, that this was more a discussion about the process of taking a decision than it was a debate about the issue.
It has now been agreed that there will be a White Paper next month followed by three months of consultation and a Commons vote in the New Year. The White Paper will address the why, the whether and the how. In other words, why have a deterrent at all in the post Cold War world; whether you need to take a decision now and how to keep it - upgrade or replace Trident - if you do.
It will end with a specific recommendation. The vote looks likely to be on that rather than merely on the principle of keeping an "independent nuclear deterrent" or on a menu of options (who wants, one minister said to me, the Commons to design a new nuclear weapon?)
Ministers on all sides are eager to brief how grown up and consensual this debate was. So that's all right then? Well no, it won't be for many outside who fear that this decision is being over-informed by fear and hurry.
• The fear in question is not of others who might have nuclear weapons but of Labour politicians who grew up in the 1980s of being portrayed once again as unilateral disarmers. This was, I'm told, raised to general laughter this morning.
• The hurry in question is the desire to get this divisive issue sorted before a Labour leadership election.
It's intriguing that it's been Tories - like the former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo - who are saying don't replace Trident.
I'm 
Comments
I’m more impressed by the mature and consensual approach the government is taking than any reputation enhancing or attention grabbing position. It’s satisfying to see government getting rhetoric and reality into line with this well balanced and gently positive approach to a very interesting but difficult issue.
It’s a bit of a hobby horse of mine but I’d like to see some consideration given to developing a next generation supersonic transport aircraft. The premise of Concorde was that it would meet civil demand and had military application. With British manufacturing and Japanese expertise, this door may be opening again.
I’m no military or civil expert in these affairs but the strategic opportunity for delivering payloads and manpower in support of global military and humanitarian objectives may be useful, and if it helps spur research and development, popular imagination, and helps cement international relations, I hope it becomes a live option.
I have difficulty understanding how a country that considers itself mature can consider replacing it's nuclear weapons when it has the chance to get rid of them. How can we look Iran and North Korea in the face if we replace Trident?
Do we say - it's OK we can have them because we're responsible - but you can't because you're not? That appears to me to be the language of the playground.
Nick what a complex issue,trident the deterrent of Britains future or just another business? "THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT BLAIR DESCRIBES AS A TOUGH DECISION" OR IS IT?so what does Blair mean when he says those words TOUGH DECISION,IS IT THAT HE UNDERSTANDS ALL THE GOOD AND BAD POINTS,THEN MAKES THE DECISION BASED ON WHAT HE BELIEVES IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE COUNTRY....WHO KNOWS!!! i can tell you what i hope for on this issue,that is, that all M.P.s have a free vote to determine whether or not we continue with a nuclear weapons programme such as trident,i hope that if M.P.s do have this choice they base their decision on facts and look no further than Japan too see just how inhumane such a weapon of mass destruction IS.
How the worm turns:
-Labour once was CND now they are judged to already have decided that Trident will be replaced/upgraded as well as opting for a new generation of nuclear reactors.
-Tories who bought the USA's Polaris rebranded are now against it.
-Sorry to mention but the UK did sign the NPT and are currently trying to persuade both North Korea and Iran to give up nuclear weapons. Surely this is a good time to lead by example and change Tony Blair's legacy from a failed Iraq to something more positive.
I`m VERY confused Nick.Last night on news at ten you said that Trident would cost between 10-25 billion pounds.Were you talking about the cost of extending the life of the present system? or the cost of replacing Trident with a new system?.The price of replacing Trident will be 76 billion pounds that is the cost over the 30 year life span of a new system given out by the government.
The real debate is whether Britain plc can afford financially and politically not to have a nuclear deterrent. Does it give us access to the top table? Does it give us respect and authority in the world? Does it help our trade and markets?
I don't buy the argument that the money saved would be given to the military for better equipment & more personnel. It could but it won't, the treasury will syphon most of it off for other 'important purposes'.
How would we be looked upon by Europe if France has a nuclear deterrent and we don't? Would the USA be interested in us if we were of no use to them if they were attacked?
Personally I think we should replace it with the next version rather than update the current one. Once it's gone we will never again be prepared to pay for a nuclear deterrent. If one lived in an area with low crime would you be prepared to see your local police station close?
Is there a real hard case these days for the UK to maintain an 'independent nuclear deterrent'? Are there not even legal issues regarding the Non Proliferation treaty we signed up to.
Lets take the lead here and actually start removing weapons there is practically zero chance of ever using and use the money saved in other more effective ways of improving our security, be that militarily or not.
I just hope that there is not only a proper discussion but that the population of this country as a whole stands up to have their say one way or the other. So that once an agreement has been arrived at, it can be seen to have been done in a transparent and democratic way.
There's not really a debate, it's a sales strategy. Technically, Parliament could vote it through tomorrow, but the public wouldn't buy it, so it needs to go through a process to prove that the vote, whose result is determined by the whip, is democratically legitimate.
We can assured that the debate will be split between continuing to have four fully armed nuclear submarines patrolling the high seas and armed with nuclear missiles, versus total unilateral disarmamnt.
Under no circumsances will we be allowed to discuss any lesser levels of armament, such as maintaining a small number of nuclear weapons on land that can be carried by bombers, which might not be proof against an all-out attack from the Soviet Union circa 1975, but is invulnerable to everything else.
Once we question the actual level of armament, below the default full Cold War threshhold of readiness, then they are in the sticky area of having to justify it in terms of the questions: What are our likely enemies, and how should we respond to them?
They don't want to go there. They want this toy, and they don't want to bother with explaining why.
When all is said and done all this is just another step down the spiral staircase into the abyss of mankinds insanity.
I find it hilarious how all the leftists think that if we disarm, Iran and North Korea will disarm too. Iran and North Korea aren't "school yard bullies" (as they like to put in their facile and naive language) who will stop developing nuclear weapons if they are no longer "cool", but realpoliking world powers run by (admittedly largely insane) mature adults. The fewer countries have nuclear weapons, the more powerful having them yourself makes you.
If we do not replace the nuclear deterrent not only will we never be able to replace it, as we will lose the industrial base, so exposing ourselves to the ravages of chance for the next 40, 60, 100 or more years, but we will also make Iran and North Korea stronger in relation to us. There may be little prospect of an impending nuclear war NOW, but it is impossible to predict what will happen in 20 or more years time.
One does not pass up on buying house insurance simply because one's house is not currently on fire.
And Trident is not even very expensive insurance. I don't know where "George Dutton" got his £75bn+ figure from, since the original Trident cost only £12.75bn to procure and the replacement will not have to have any additional capabilities, and so will be able to use old, 'off the shelf' technology. Over a 30 year life span of the system, this works out at only around £200 million or so - less than 1% of the defence budget.
A vote on Trident should not be put before the Commons, not only because the Commons would probably make the wrong decision, but because procurement decisions never are. If the government wants to renew and the MoD thinks it necessary, then they are quite entitled to wield what is an executive power of government without putting it before the legislature.
The "New Tories" ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are turning into the 21st century's loony left.
Will renewal of Trident add to or reduce the number of Scots who cast their vote for Labour at the Scottish elections?
That is the question that Tony Blair wants an answer to.
The irony is that we do not currently HAVE an independent deterrent. We cannot launch Trident unless the Americans allow us to use their guidance system. I've often wondered whether Blair's impersonation of a poodle stems from this and other realities of our so-called "special relationship".
The decision is of such importance that our Government should make public all of the information and strategic scenarios they are considering in relation to this decision. I doubt China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan or India will be surprised or outrages by any of it, so why not?
I question the fact that Britain has an Independent nuclear deterrent at all. Since the codes and guidance system need to operate it are in the sole possession of the Americans, ie. Britain can not take action autonomously and requires American backing - which in return requires action on our behalf (Iraq?). I also agree with the point posted earlier that we cannot hope to deter N. Korea and Iran we are renewing our own arsenal (at great expense to the taxpayer - we have other domestic problems, schools NHS etc)
"Unacceptably expensive,economically wasteful and militarily unsound"
Gordon Brown on Trident,1984
"I think we should replace Trident"
Gordon Brown on Trident,2006
Listening to the debate in the House of Commons it is self-evident that whatever the options regarding nuclear capability the costs will be extremely high. If we choose to dismantle nuclear capabilities, we will have to pay billions to decommission the said facilities. Any modification while keeping the existing capabilities also carries a risk tag. Producing new capabilities will involve both decommissioning and production. In any case we are talking about not less than ten years, provided there is enough funding and enough expertise available.
The premise behind Britain, the US etc having nuclear weapons and denying them to Iran and North Korea seems to be, as has been mentioned, that we are responsible with our weapons, suggesting that they would be used as a deterrent only, because we'd never use them on a civilian population. One crucial problem here, something can only be a deterrent if you ARE willing to use it.
I wonder if Tony Blair could explain to us how nuclear weapons could be used to fight the 'War on Terror' against non-state actors? Nuke a city that has some terror suspects in it? How very enlightened.
To Gill,
How can we look North Korea and Iran in the face? Quite simply, because we are a liberal democracy with an enforced rule of law. They are totalitarian states run by despots. I'm sure the British government would have no problem if Sweden or Denmark wanted to develop nuclear weapons. Besides, the more important question is "How can we stand up to them if we don't?"
At least with this government the issue is open to the general public, will be debated in the HoC, and voted upon, not is secret behind closed doors as was the case with the last government.
In answer to No 10 above
Britain would not buy/have Trident but for the FACT that you have to have nuclear weapons to gain a seat on the UN Security Council?.That is the only reason the UK wants them.Many in government have said they will NEVER use them no matter what kind of attack the UK comes under.I myself doubt if the present Trident has any warheads on it why should it if they are not going to be used? it would also cancel out any accidents that Trident may have no worries if it did not have any warheads on it.It is the perception that the UK has them that is all important.Think about it why did the UK allow the USA to have so much say in if we could fire them or not (on the present Trident) the reason we will never use it.Well only a madperson would.
17. At 11:26 PM on 26 Nov 2006, Tim, Herts wrote:
To Gill,
How can we look North Korea and Iran in the face? Quite simply, because we are a liberal democracy with an enforced rule of law. They are totalitarian states run by despots. I'm sure the British government would have no problem if Sweden or Denmark wanted to develop nuclear weapons. Besides, the more important question is "How can we stand up to them if we don't?"
The problem with your post Tim is this part...
"we are a liberal democracy with an enforced rule of law. They are totalitarian states run by despots".
Do you think that despots will care if we wipe out there entire country/countries?. At the end of the second world war Hitler only had one objective left that was to wipe out the German nation because they had let him down they had failed not him.That Tim is the nature of a despot.So where is the deterrent in having Trident?.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion over the costs associated with all this. When Trident is talked of costing 13 billion pounds to buy and another 200 million to operate, it seems clear what's being talked about is both the boats and missiles together. The bulk of this cost is building and operating the four vanguard subs, the missiles are pocket change in comparison.
If the nukes are scraped I severely doubt the boats will go too, most likely they will be fitted with the much more useful conventional trident system the Americans are wishing to develop.
So I doubt there can really be any substantial cost savings associated with not continuing to be nuclear.
Also the NPT only encourages NWS's towards disarmament, so as long we end up with fewer warheads we are fully legal.
Key points about Trident is it clearly breaks the NPT no
ifs or buts it does.The NPT
is a muddle.CND knows that and has clearly put its faith in a new treaty on Nuclear Abolition tabled at the UN by Costa Rica.The trouble with the NPT it wants to abolish nuclear weapons and goes about extolling the virtue of nuclear power the means to get nuclear warheads.Our solution get rid of the lot.Don't fall for the spin on nuclear power helping prevent global warming its spin getting uranium out of the ground to enhance the planned nuclear renaissance which is bullshit anyway will create much more carbon than it stops.Decentralisation of the grid microgeneration its happening right here right now. Oh and what about the cancer epidemic! that is down to the radioactive releases we have been exposed to since the nuclear age began. And what about the jobs.There are more engineers going into the alternative energy sector than are signing up for the nuclear industry.Why does Tony want the bomb,he is living in the past and has nothing new to offer in security thinking than Atlee.
The decision to replace the Trident subs and retain nuclear weapons for another 30 or so years beyond the current system WILL have an impact on wider efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The link is not as a direct as some (CND) claim, but neither is the link non-existent as the government claims.
There are long term trends that reinforce the salience of nuclear weaponry in international politics and trends that reduce that salience. If the UK says to world we still need nuclear weapons even though the country is enjoying a very benign strategic security environment (our nuclear weapons have NO role to play in deterring or defeating international terrorism) that can only increase the perceived salience of nuclear weapons in international politics at a time when we are working hard to convince Iran and North Korea that they do not nuclear weapons to meet their security needs.
It doesnt matter what anyone thinks because when this issue comes to its minutes of closing the decision will be one of which the country as a majority does not want, however how are we going to be able to stand as a dominant nation in this world without some kind of nuclear detterent?