The former defence minister, Nick Harvey, has reignited the debate about the replacement of Trident or, more specifically, the ballistic missile-carrying nuclear submarines which convey it.
Ironically, the Conservative Chancellor George Osborne has greatly helped the case for not renewing Trident, by placing the £25 Billion cost of the successor submarine in the main Defence budget, to compete with conventional arms for money. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the chiefs of the three services are reported to be going cold on the idea of a like-for-like replacement.
Traditionally the west had two types of nuclear submarines – attack submarines, called SSNs, whose role was to sink enemy ships and submarines, and SSBNs, whose only role was to stealthily carry, and if necessary, launch, sea-launched ballistic missiles; a secure retaliatory nuclear strike to deter the Soviets from starting a nuclear war.
Although I could reluctantly support a nuclear deterrent during the Cold War, I feel the current international situation has pushed the nuclear deterrent from being a necessary evil to a an unjustifiable expense.
Of the arguments for keeping the deterrent, two give me pause.
One argument recognises that we no longer have an enemy to deter so suggests the deterrent becomes a nuclear insurance policy. We have no idea how the future will unfold and what threats we will face in the future; we need to keep the deterrent just in case.
The second is that to keep the necessary skills and knowledge for the production of vital nuclear attack submarines they must be built roughly every two years. The production of the new ballistic missile submarine would bridge the gap between the last of the current Astute class attack subs and their replacements.
A new submarine type was introduced in the West when the US Navy decided to convert four surplus SSBNs to carry conventional cruise missiles. These cruise missile carrying nuclear submarines packed seven cruise missiles into one Trident missile tube. The US Navy was so happy with their new cruise missile submarines that they decided to build in the capability to launch a ballistic missile OR cruise missiles into their next class of ballistic missile submarines.
The British Ministry of Defence has become a partner in the project and it appears the tubes will be built in units of four.
Two years ago the Royal United Services Institute suggested four options which could allow a cheaper replacement for the Royal Navy’s Trident ballistic missile boats. Their third option was a dual role submarine; an attack submarine which had four ballistic missile tubes. With the proposed ability to launch ballistic or cruise missiles from these tubes, we could have a triple role submarine: an attack, cruise or ballistic submarine.
Using the “quad pack” of multirole missile tubes in a new class of submarine could allow us to remove the Trident system from front line service. Should the international situation change we could bring the nuclear deterrent back without too much difficulty (but probably high cost) as we would have the missile tubes on our subs. Plus, we would gain a submarine fleet with much improved capabilities, whilst guaranteeing important strategic industry and jobs in Barrow shipyard.
A triple role submarine would solve both the insurance and production dilemmas, enhance the capabilities of our submarines and save money to be spent on our conventional forces.
P.S. unsurprisingly perhaps other people appear to have arrived at similar conclusions.
* Gareth Jones is a post-graduate in International Relations from Swansea university and was an active member of the Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats for nine years before recently moving to Maidenhead
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dundee Chess Congress 2024 #dundeewestend
GUEST POST No sign of an end to defections in local government
Monday night is Parish Council night...
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Welsh Labour hospitality row
Peter Martin
Steve Trevethan
Nonconformistradical
Jenny Barnes
Mick Taylor
18 Comments
Thank you Gareth, unsurprisingly I feel there’s a lot of merit in the suggestion. 😉
Although there are many threats to the security of the UK in the world, it is hard to imagine that nuclear weapons are the answer that will protect us from them.
What we should be doing is considering what the risks actually are and what investment do we make to mitigate them.
I think that the biggest threat to our security comes from Global warming and we should be spending more money on that than on our military spending.
I believe that process is called a Strategic Defence and Security Review and begins with a National Security Strategy:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/nationalsecuritystrategy
Gareth, this looks like a good option. It appears to tick all the boxes for being more cost effective, flexible to keep all our military options open, supportive of UK jobs, and it would give us a distinct policy position away from the Tories and Labour.
@ Jedi – Yeah! Read Think Defence’s post, wrote this in response and then read your post which inspired Think Defence’s post! I think your post is better…
@ Agreed. We need a broad definition of security – and like Jedibeeftrix indicated a broad National Security Strategy – for example, is their a national security argument for renewable energy to avoid reliance on foriegn sources of gas?
@ Tom – In theory its a win, win, win solution.
i have updated my article a little to make the maths make more sense (italics).
A sound argument.
I agree the proposal does have merit.
Firstly, by taking Trident out of the front line, we are helping to further reduce global nuclear tensions (and fingers crossed that it never gets put back into the front line and so finally gets scrapped without replacement in 30+ years). Secondly, whilst there is no ‘enemy’ at the present time, we do retain the ability to quickly bring weapons such as Trident back into front line, we should not be complacent about things. For example lets look at China and it’s aspirations, from the various territorial disputes it has go into since WWII it is clear it is not happy with it’s generally accepted boundaries. What would our response be if it decides to occupy Taiwan or the Japanese islands? a UN resolution just as we did with it’s occupation of Tibet and then do nothing? Likewise with the coming food and resource crisis, what will our response be to a country that decides to take direct control of parts of Africa say, on the pretense of safeguarding the production of produce from lands they ‘own’ and hence delivery of their ‘contracts’ back to the mother country.
This is not to say that any specific country (and that includes China) is potentially an enemy, however, it is useful whilst the new global order is being established that we retain some credible means of enforcement for when some decide they can take actions that are outside of acceptable norm’s.
Britain’s nuclear deterrent is not independent of the USA, (just as well, there’s always the admittedly remote possibility of a nutcase PM trying to launch without US permission). It’s not needed – there’s no chance of the UK unleashing nukes on China or on any country misbehaving in Africa or in any other scenario.
If the world does commit nuclear suicide – still a possibility – it won’t be because, or in spite of, any action taken by our country. And a deterrent only works if it’s instantly available, not if a country has to say “hang on a minute chaps, we’re not quite ready”,
Just scrap the whole thing, review to what extent we can keep commiting to foreign wars (however well intentioned our involvement may be) and provide the military with the best non-nuclear equipment on the market, in quantities sufficient to fulfil whatever we think may be required.
Good post, I looked at some of this in detail a few years ago here for those interested: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/politics/documents/research/Continuitychange.pdf
OCC – we have independence of operation, not independence of acquisition.
If HMG decides to deliver buckets of sunshine there is nothing that anyone can do to stop it.
Jedibeeftrix – there’s evidence that the UK does not have independence of operation. The US has the codes (or whatever) needed to unleash the missiles. It’s a con trick which only fools some Brits, not potential enemies.
@ Nick – Excellent piece of work. Got some interesting information as well.
do you have better evidence than multiple submissions to parliament Chris?
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/britainss-nukes-independence-of-operation-not-of-acquisition/
jedibeeftrix – Thanks for the link to your well argued piece (sorry I’ve only just read it).
OK I admit I’m short of evidence – but I suspect you are too! Defence is, of necessity, shrouded in secrecy and no UK government is likely to admit that our deterrent isn’t independent. I think it unlikely to put it mildly that the US would permit us true independence of operation.
I do actually hope it isn’t independent. When Chris Huhne suggested, during the party leadership contest, replacing Trident with a French style deterrent I changed my mind and voted for Nick.
The UK does not need nukes of any description. It does need – as some military chiefs are saying – to think again about the extreme cuts now being proposed to our armed forces.
my pleasure OCC.
Far from protecting us all and deterring war, it is likely that the next war (if the US goes ahead with what look like plans for a `pre-emptive’ strike on Iran)will actually be caiused by nuclear weapons , the first oof its kind 9tho Cuba way back in 1962 was close).That would mean that never again could any state claim that nuclear weapons have a deterrence function and neither could they claim that they make the world a safer place. -too late, tho, I fear.
Just scrap it with no replacement. It’s ridiculously costly willy waving. It ain’t independent, and if it were it would undermine NATO. Time to grasp the nettle and campaign at the General Election on a non-nuclear platform.