Yesterday with the assistance of the Opposition, the Government won the House of Commons vote to commence the design of a replacement Trident missile system. Ninety-five Labour members joined with the Liberal Party to vote against the motion.I wish to thank Dowelld for the thoughtful and well presented comment posted on the “Greenpeace demonstrate against Trident renewal” blog. It has stimulated me to give more thought to the Trident missile system replacement argument.
Trident supports argue that the choice is: either replace the existing Trident system in 17 years time, or leave the UK vulnerable to nuclear attack by a rogue or unstable State. In the debate, other options have been ignored.
Why Trident? Trident was the replacement for the Polaris missile submarine-launched system. Why Polaris? At the height (or should it be depth) of the Cold War, both sides had over kill. Russia had sufficient intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to wipe out the UK. Great Britain had its own missile system, however if Russia set off a pre-emptive strike it could wipe out all the British and USA missiles before they could be launched. So the West didn’t have an effective deterrent system - but neither did Russia.
It was thought, peace could only be maintained if the West had a deterrent - hence the development of a submarine launched system. The theory being, Russia wouldn’t set off a pre-emptive attack on the West, if it knew even if both the UK & USA were obliterated, a retaliatory attack would be launched from a fleet of nuclear submarines patrolling the World’s oceans.
The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT 1&2) and the subsequent Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) resulted in the cap being placed on the number of warheads and ICBMs the signatories could deploy.
The case for upgrading the Trident system is said to be the need to main a nuclear capability as a deterrent against a yet to be identified rogue State(s). While the USA, Russia and China might not take steps to prevent a country developing a nuclear capability, it is virtually certain they would not allow any country to build up sufficient stocks that it would constitute a threat. Consequently the UK does not require a submarine based system, a land based deterrent system would be sufficient.
By far the largest proportion of the Trident system cost is required to build and maintain the submarine fleet. A land based system could be built and maintained for a fraction of the cost. The UK could have a truly independent nuclear deterrent system, to counter any threat from a rogue State. And the money saved could be used to update conventional weaponry and equipment.
Because a land based system could readily be designed and built using tried and tested technology, the decision to commence designing a system could be delayed until at least 2015, without compromising the safety of the UK.
Yet again the Ministry of Defence mandarins are planning to equip the British forces to fight the previous war, while leaving it ill-equipped to counter the present and future threats.
