The Future of the UKs Nuclear Deterrent

---

It is now a matter of public record that I did not vote for the renewal of the Trident system.

Andy Reed MP
19/3/07

---

Have your say on this major policy decision. I will post the different positions on this site to encourage debate and discussion.

Post your views via my contact page.

Andy Reed

---

The Debate and the Issues

Reaction so far.....

Having taken part in the consultation on Trident I have found it a really interesting experience. I hope in this short article to take on board many of the issues raised and to dispel some of the myths floating around.

I have discovered in this process that it possible to understand the wide range of positions taken by people. Like many things in life the final decision anybody takes is based on the fine balance judgements made on the facts as well as a starting position or ones moral or belief system. In this short article I hope to set out the arguments for and against in all the main areas of contention - morality, cost, deterrence, independent deterrent, the Non proliferation Treaty, and the timing for example. I hope it brings about an understanding of why people can take a different view with an understanding of why!

Hopefully as you will see from the balance of the arguments put by both sides - the final decision one takes has to be based on some element of doubt and uncertainty. For example, the claim that a nuclear deterrence has maintained peace throughout the cold war cannot be proved either way - however convincing the proponents for each case have been. At the end of the day this will remain a balanced judgement and whichever side of the fence you find yourself one has to respect the arguments put forward by the other!

First though I think it is really worth noting that the only reason we are having this on line debate is because the Labour government, despite having a manifesto commitment and making it clear in the last parliament that a decision to replace was need in this parliament, has given a vote to the Commons on the issue and published a white paper for a full public debate to take place. In the past such decisions have not even been made by full cabinet. They have been made behind closed doors and then announced to parliament. Cynics complain the government had already decided to replace Trident submarines. This is obvious to be fair. There was a clear manifesto commitment and there still is. It's not a closed secret. The position of the government has always been clear and obvious to anybody who has looked at this issue. Therefore, the ability for MPs to discuss and vote on the issue has to welcomed.

Points I aim to cover:-

This is a replacement of the submarines - not the Trident missiles. That decision will come much later. Again this was made clear in the debate. There are more stages to come. For example the final decision to actually buy the submarines will come again in about 2010-2012. They will be built and come into service in 2024. The decision to replace the nuclear missiles (The Trident D5) is still years away.

Morality

Personally for me this has always been the sticking point. I personally from a faith perspective believe the possession of the weapon system to be immoral on the basis that it indiscriminately kills civilians. I could NEVER press the button - even if the UK was being attacked. To kill/ fry millions of civilians of any enemy is unjust. However, I can understand that even within the faith communities that there are those who believe even within a moral framework it can be argued that deterring nuclear war and making it unthinkable is justifiable means to an end.

Timing

This is less clear and depends on your cynicism of the process I guess. In the past decisions were already made and presented to government. It is clear that the ordering of the boats happens in about another 4-5 years. So no decision is absolutely necessary or binding - but how refreshing to be given a parliamentary option to express an opinion so early in the process. The Prime Minister didn't have to go through the pain of a potential Labour revolt, he could simply have done what others have done and said we had a manifesto commitment and let's carry on.

Deterrence?

As I have said this is a matter of judgement. First one has to decide if the possession of nuclear weapons helped or hindered during the cold war. That is a matter of judgement not fact. Second you then have to decide who are our current weapons meant to deter. At this time in history this is less clear. Third you then have to be certain that between now and 2055 when another decision will be required to replace our submarines again that there will be no need for a policy of deterrence. At the moment its hard to see the UK in a position of aggression/ war with another nuclear state. However, I believe we have to be aware that the geo-politics of the rest of this century are fraught with potential for conflict. Within this period we will see China emerge as THE superpower with India not far behind. We could see some 30-40 potential nuclear states. We will see the end of the oil based global economy and we will see the physical impact of c,climate change and the increase of water as a natural resource to be fought over. In these circumstances it is impossible for any of us to predict what the future holds.

NPT & Legality

I ht ink if you are opposed to nuclear weapons you can construct an argument about our role in the Non Proliferation Treaty and being against the spirit. However, on balance I think we do meet our legal requirements under the NPT.

Cost

It is obvious that cost has to be a factor in the discussion. Various figures have been used ranging from £22bn to £76bn by Greenpeace. Having studied the various figures there does seem to be some general agreement though, despite the wide variances in the headlines. The cost of building the submarines and commissioning will be about £20bn and the full running costs on top over the period to 2050 will be in the region of the £70bn quoted by Greenpeace. But we need to put these figures into perspective to make a judgement. The cost of £76bn is over 50 years. Therefore the annual cost is shared over that period. Thus apart from the build costs it will be roughly similar to now. Thus a figure of under £2bn per annum is the real cost. As government will be spending nearly £600bn per annum by 2010 the cost has to be seen in those terms. Once again if you believe a nuclear deterrence is unnecessary this will all be a waste of money. If you believe a nuclear deterrence is an insurance cost - you must judge whether it is a price worth paying?

I would like to thank all of those who contributed to the debate. I must admit that I have read more widely on this subject matter than most others before parliament because of the implications of the decision.

I have only briefly skipped over some of the arguments but I am posting links to the debate itself as well as some really interesting articles which set out some of the dilemmas faced in this process.

Yours

Andy Reed