BRITISH REPLACEMENT OF THE TRIDENT SYSTEM

Background

Policy

"We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons and continue to play a full role in international efforts to strengthen arms control and prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. However, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security."^[6]

Trident system

The majority of this system is based in Scotland at HM Naval Base Clyde, which includes the Faslane home of the ''Vanguard'' submarines and Coulport nuclear depot.
The oldest submarine of the ''Vanguard'' class is expected to remain in service until 2017 "The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterent: the White Paper" without a refit, prompting consideration of a replacement before the end of the current parliament in 2010 to allow for development time.

Replacement system

Proposal

A December 2006 Ministry of Defence white paper recommended that the deterrent should be maintained and outlined measures that would do so until the 2040s. It advocated the currently preferred submarine-based system, as it remained the cheapest and most secure deterrent option available.
Costs for this option are estimated at £15-20 billion based on:

★ £0.25 billion to participate in U.S. Trident D5 missile life extension programme.

★ £11-14 billion for a class of four new SSBNs.

★ £2-3 billion for refurbishing warheads.

★ £2-3 billion for infrastructure.
These cost estimates exclude the ''Vanguard'' 5 year life extension and decommissioning, and it is unclear if new Trident missiles will need to be purchased for the life extension programme.
Running costs would be about £1.5 billion per year at 2006 prices.

Trident D5 missile life extension

In 2002 the US Navy awarded a contract for the Trident II D5 Service Life Extension Programme to extend the life of the missiles from the mid-2020s to about 2042, to match the extended life of the US Ohio class submarine. The UK will join this programme to arm a ''Vanguard'' submarine class replacement.

Submarines

The paper suggested parts of the existing Trident system be refitted to some extent to prolong their lives. However, the relatively short (five years) life extension potential of the ''Vanguard'' class meant that a new class of SSBNs should replace it in the early 2020s. There are suggestions that the new fleet be cut to three hulls if Continuous at Sea Deterrence could still be assured at that number. The first SSBN would take 17 years to be designed and built, making a five year life extension of the ''Vanguard'' class necessary. On this basis, a refitted ''Vanguard'' class could still shrink by at least one vessel before the first replacement SSBN enters service.

Munitions

The overall warhead stockpile would be reduced from around 200 warheads to 160. The remaining warheads are expected to last until the mid-2020s, with a decision to either replace or refurbish them taken closer to the time. The government-owned nuclear weapons research company Atomic Weapons Establishment would likely play a key role in either, with over £1 billion being invested between 2005 and 2008 to maintain "key skills and facilities."^[7] The replacement of the Trident missiles was also deferred, as the UK intends to participate in a US programme to lengthen the missiles' lives from the 2020s through to the 2040s.

Parliamentary support

On 14 March 2007, the Labour government won Commons support for the plans to renew the submarine system. The proposals were passed by the House of Commons by a majority of 248.^[8]
Despite a clarification that the vote was just for the concept stage of the new system, 95 Labour MPs rebelled, and it was only passed with the support of the opposition Conservative Party.^[9]
It was the first time MPs had been given the chance to vote on whether the UK should remain a nuclear power, and the biggest backbench rebellion since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war.
Another vote is anticipated before the order of the new submarine class in 2014.

Controversy

An anti-nuclear demonstration outside HM Naval Base Clyde

Morality

The possession of nuclear weapons, as a form weapons of mass destruction, has long been criticised in British politics for being immoral, by members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and their supporters. As such, it has been at the core of the peace movement in the UK since the first introduction of nuclear weapons in the 1950s.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has historically been a significant anti-nuclear lobby group since its formation in 1957. As a result, the potential replacement of Trident has naturally been criticised by the CND, coming under their "Scrap Trident" campaign. More recently in 2006, 20 bishops claimed Trident was "anti-God." Other religious leaders, including Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, have questioned the morality of replacing Trident.^[10]
Other groups claim the development of new nuclear weapons would undermine Britain's stance with other countries, such as Iran and North Korea, and international nuclear disarmament in general^[11]. The UK government insists that there are no plans to enhance the capability of the missiles in terms of payload, range or accuracy, in order to avoid such diplomatic problems.^[12]

Strategic value

Another reason cited is the claim that the nuclear environment has become less dangerous since the development of the deterrent during the Cold War. Consequently, with a diminished nuclear threat towards Britain, the value of having a deterrent to guard against it has fallen as well. However the Ministry of Defence has a declared policy of sub-strategic use which would see, for example, a limited nuclear strike (e.g. one missile with one limited yield warhead) used as either a deterrent to a country from using chemical or biological weapons or as retaliation for having used them.^[13][14][15]
Outspoken critics on this basis include former Defence Secretaries Malcolm Rifkind^[16], Denis Healey.^[17] and Michael Portillo.^[18]

Legality

On 19 December 2005 Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers handed down an opinion which addressed

"whether Trident or a likely replacement to Trident breaches customary international law and ... whether the replacement of Trident would breach the Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967 (NPT), article VI"^[19]

Singh and Chinkin found that:
#The use of the Trident system would breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the "intransgressible" requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants.
#The replacement of Trident is likely to constitute a breach of article VI of the NPT.
#Such a breach would be a material breach of that treaty.^[20]
The opinion reinforces claims made by Greenpeace and other groups claim that new development of nuclear weapons would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article 6:^[21]

"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."^[22]

Cost and timing

Several groups, such as the Scottish National Party and some trade unions, prefer the money to be spent on public services.^[23]
Greenpeace has claimed the recent £1 billion investment in AWE is for secret initial work on developing a replacement.
In evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 23 January 2007, the US nuclear expert Richard Garwin said that the plans were "premature and wasteful", and that delaying the decision for 15 years following inexpensive engine repairs would save £5bn. He added that pressure to commission a new fleet of submarines was rooted in the shipbuilding industry's urge to land lucrative contracts.^[24].

References

1. "Q&A: Trident replacement"
2. "The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent"
3. "Trident debate to top CND agenda"
4. "Bishops against Trident options"
5. "Unions oppose replacing Trident"
6. "Strategic Defence Review"
7. "Written Ministerial Statements"
8. "Trident plan wins Commons support"
9. "Blair wins Trident nuclear arsenal vote"
10. "Archbishop questions Trident plan "
11. "Trident cash risks terror escalation, warns MEP"
12. "Why do Trident submarines have to be replaced?"
13. Big boats and bigger skimmers: determining Britain’s role in the Long War, Paul Rogers, , , International Affairs,
14. BBC Breakfast with Frost interview: Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence
15. Weapons of Mass Destruction
16. Rifkind slams 'dumb' plan to axe Trident
17. UK needs no nuclear arms - Healey
18. Scrap UK nuclear arms - Portillo
19. http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195/ (paragraph 1)
20. http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195/ (paragraph 2)
21. "Nuclear claims over weapons site"
22. "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons"
23. "Trident missile costs 'immoral'"
24. Trident replacement 'premature'

See also

★ Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

External links

★ Ballistic Submarines - Royal Navy

★ Ministry of Defence

★ Atomic Weapons Establishment

★ Government White Paper Cm 6994 ''The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent'' (December 2006)

★ UK House of Commons, Select Committee on Defence The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterent: the White Paper: Ninth Report of Session 2006-07, House of Commons Papers, HC 225 [2005-2007]

★ UK House of Commons, Select Committee on Defence The Future of the UK’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Manufacturing and Skills Base: Fourth Report of Session 2006–07, House of Commons Papers, HC 59 [2005-2007]

★ Archbishop of Canterbury's press release 4 December 2006 ''Trident White Paper must provoke wide debate''