This week’s Trident commission report was generously funded by a number of groups backing unilateral disarmament, but it has concluded that a continued nuclear deterrent is an important part of Britain’s security.
Authored by senior politicians of all three parties, defence specialists and academics, the commission’s members came to a unanimous conclusion that the United Kingdom should not abandon its deterrent when while the threat that we could be subjected to nuclear blackmail at some point in the future remains more than negligible. The commission was unable to identify any likelihood that a grand unilateral gesture of disarmament on the part of the UK would spur others to follow suit.
It was particularly welcome to see senior Liberal Democrat Menzies Campbell among the commissioners endorsing the conclusion that continuing with the current submarine replacement programme makes far more sense than switching to some other delivery platform.
Some authors of the report thought Britain should step down from its continuous at-sea deterrent posture, the commitment to have a nuclear-armed submarine on patrol round the clock. Yet it seems highly unlikely to gain traction given the relatively small amount of money it would save compared to the big reduction in ability to deter a hostile strike. The point of having the Trident system undetectable and operational at all times is to make it invulnerable to attack; in the event of a future nuclear crisis, that could be critically important in deterring an aggressor who could otherwise have a chance of disabling the deterrent (for example, by launching a strike on it while it was in harbour) and then be able threaten the UK with impunity. In addition, the idea you could step down from round-the-clock patrols then just restart them when tensions heightened is a fallacy.
Some commission members have also introduced a new red herring into the debate over renewal: an idea that we could put the decision off beyond 2016, apparently to save money. But that is a non-starter: the Navy is clear that it cannot safely be done. Even if it could it would cost taxpayers more to keep the amazing industrial supply chain in Barrow and across the country idle when it could be completing the programme in the most efficient way possible.
The government’s naval experts are crystal clear that the Vanguard submarines which currently carry Britain’s nuclear deterrent have already had their lives extended as far as is safely possible. Taking a risk on adding still further years to their active duty, in the hope that the world will suddenly accelerate towards a global zero despite the fact Russia – key to multilateral disarmament – is becoming more aggressive and intransigent, is unfortunately completely unrealistic.
The nuclear deterrent will always, understandably, be a difficult and controversial issue. But this week’s report underlines why Ed Miliband and shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker are right to be committed to continuing the submarine-building programme Labour began in government.
Britain should maintain a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent in a world fraught with risks and unknowns. Labour agrees that the evidence is overwhelming that this is best achieved through maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent of British-built submarines, boats more complex that the space shuttle, which Paul Kenny of the GMB rightly described as ‘the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing’. The Trident commission has shown there is no substantial argument against this stance that holds water – and that we can maintain Britain’s defences while maintaining our commitment to and energetic pursuit of multilateral disarmament.
———————————
John Woodcock is member of parliament for Barrow and Furness and chair of Progress. He tweets @JWoodcockMP
———————————
To support the contention that there is a likely threat from a nuclear power in the next twenty years, please name the countries likely to threaten the UK but not also the US, Germany or Japan. Why is the UK unlikely to benefit from the NATO nuclear umbrella in the event of a threat from Pakistan or Israel? How likely is it that Russia will threaten the UK and not Germany or France? What makes the UK uniquely vulnerable to nuclear blackmail by North Korea or India?