Today Menzies Campbell will call for no final decision on Trident before 2014, while halving our capability to one hundred warheads and three submarines before then.
“There is no need to rush to judgement on a replacement for Trident.
“The decision can be delayed, as the Defence Select Committee has already concluded.
“We can maintain the present system with half the number of warheads and still provide the necessary insurance for Britain’s security, while making a real contribution to the cause of multilateral disarmament.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raven: Phil Daniels and archaeology encounter nuclear waste
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Churchill and Lloyd George: Rivals for Greatness - new podcast series
Climate change ushers in record-breaking July
Nigel Jones
Peter Davies
Cassie
Peter Chambers
Rif Winfield
3 Comments
“and still provide the necessary insurance for Britain’s security”
Anyone want to tell me exactly what insurance nuclear weapons provide in today’s world, given that nuclear weapons didn’t deter Argentina invading the Falklands or Iraq invading Kuwait, despite the latter being allied to the world’s biggest nuclear superpower. As for terrorism, can anyone think of any circumstances in which Trident or its replacement would be of any use whatsoever in fighting this?
“…while making a real contribution to the cause of multilateral disarmament.”
Given that the UK accounts for such a tiny proportion of the world’s nuclear weapons, can this country ever make a meaningful contribution to multilateral disarmament?
“Given that the UK accounts for such a tiny proportion of the world’s nuclear weapons, can this country ever make a meaningful contribution to multilateral disarmament?”
Well possibly but we shouldn’t let best be the enemy of good.
If we keep a nuclear deterrent – and I’d describe myself as a sceptically and reluctantly multilateralist then the details – ie number of submarines, number of warheads etc should be a matter of military requirements. What I don’t see us putting forward is a justification why 3 submarines and 100 warheads is more the right level for our nuclear deterrent than 200 warheads and 4 submarines.
It could possibly be that this is a long term reduction as it may takes us below the capacity of Polaris – in terms of warheads if not megatonnage. Though you have to ask what the justification was underlying that number was justified.
I’m actually more concerned about cutting the number of submarines – if it was thought 4 were necessary to guarantee cover when the UK first commissioned Trident then why are 3 deemed enough now? In 1992 we talked of limiting the number of warheads on the “four-boat Trident system” to levels under Polaris.
Have the subs proved to be more reliable in service than was anticipated? Whatever your views on having a nuclear deterrent, having one that could become inoperative because of equipment failures would be pretty pointless!
I’m left with the feeling that were setting the level of an important and expensive military provision by some vote-motivated political jockeying – which frankly is a silly way to go about things.
Do we learn nothing? What we need are big increases in conventional capabilities, paid for by scrapping Trident. Please tell me what use nuclear weapons are in Iraq or Afghanistan, Sierra Leone or the Balkans?
The Trident force is not independent anyway & can’t be used without US approval. Effectively it is just an extension of the US nuclear arsenal. Totally pointless.