A new Trident makes no military sense
Published 07 November 2005
The only surprise is that there is any surprise. A ruling party unaccustomed to open discussion among its members or parliamentarians on day-to-day issues is hardly likely to throw open a debate about the future of its nuclear deterrent. Ministers who regard their party's old position on defence as a major reason for two decades spent in opposition are hardly likely to change course now. A military establishment that has long constructed policy around dependency on one nation, the US, is hardly likely to disappoint its ally.
There is much nonsense in this non-debate _ at least on a conventional political level. Tony Blair and his attack dog, the Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid, go through the motions of consulting and MPs go through the motions of being consulted. There will be no vote. After his parliamentary scrape on the eve of the Iraq war in March 2003, such an idea would have been inconceivable to the Prime Minister.
Politically, as Robert Fox disclosed in the New Statesman back in June, the deed is done. The question on ministers' minds is not whether to replace the ageing Trident D5 missiles and four Vanguard-class submarines, but with what? The options for upgrading range from £5bn (for replacing the missiles alone) up to £30bn for a new suite at the weapons research centre at Aldermaston, along with new submarines and base facilities. The military is not sitting on its hands. Already, Aldermaston has been recruiting scientists to design warheads. At Faslane, where the submarines are based, workers have been told their jobs are secure.
Labour's election manifesto is vague on the specifics of replacing Trident, but notes the need for Britain to maintain its independent nuclear deterrent. More important were two decisions taken previously that remove any doubt. The defence white paper of December 2003, which laid out a brave new world of high-tech military solutions, stated: "The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged." UK forces were required to become an adjunct of the US, or in document-speak, to be "interoperable with US command and control structures". The notion, therefore, of an "independent" anything in British defence is illusory. The nuclear upgrade system being considered is based on the American programme. To emphasise the point, last autumn the UK quietly renewed for another ten years the 1958 mutual defence agreement that underpins nuclear co-operation with the US.
Arguments about relative costs are valid, but politically miss the point. For Blair, it matters not that spending on Trident mark II is the equivalent of 60 new hospitals. Past and present elide to make an unanswerable case. Unilateralism, the Prime Minister believes, marked the worst of Labour theorising in opposition, closeness to President Bush the best of Labour realism in government. Blair is less emphatic on the actual military merits. He talks of the combined threats of terrorism, rogue states and proliferation, but has yet to make the case that a sea-launched nuclear attack would deter any of the above. The best that Reid could come up with, in his exchanges with Labour MPs on 31 October, was to "defy anyone . . . to say we will not need a nuclear weapon in 20 years' time". Such vacuity is unbecoming for a mature democracy.
The political process will take its course. Blair will pledge to "listen" _ and do no such thing. Would any of his possible successors, Gordon Brown included, act differently? Almost certainly not, although Brown is not a great fan of defence budgets. MPs will tell concerned constituents that they are lobbying, and know in their hearts that there is little they can do. Opinion polls suggest that the public, particularly when informed of the cost, is worried. The only credible way of stopping this absurd waste of resources is through popular pressure. One million against the war in Iraq did not affect the immediate outcome, but it did change the way the war was subsequently regarded. That march was made the more powerful by the alliance of the principled and pragmatic. The same applies to the nuclear issue. Citizens do not have to succumb to the rallying cries of the 1980s unilateralists to know that, now in these post-Soviet times, son of Trident makes no military or financial sense.
So you think you're British?
The NS is pleased to announce its own citizenship test to sort the true Brit from the chaff. Answers not on a postcard. Winner receives a free ID card:
1) How many tattoos does David Beckham have? Bonus point: where are they?
2) Name our leader: President Blair or Prime Minister Blair.
3) How many wars have either of the above fought in the past eight years?
4) How many people in the arts and media have not used illegal drugs? Bonus point: name them.
5) What are the exact ingredients of a Bacardi Breezer?
6) When did a British train last arrive on time?
7) In what year did Winston Churchill invent car insurance?
8) Is parking free on the M25?
9) How many UK citizens do not own an iPod?
10) So who told you Britain was Great anyway?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
