British replacement of the Trident system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British replacement of Trident is a proposed plan to replace the existing nuclear deterrent currently based on four Vanguard class submarines each armed with 16 Trident II Submarine-launched ballistic missiles.^[1] Although it remains at the hypothetical stage,^[2] it is increasingly becoming a issue in UK politics.^[3] The government has begun planning a new submarine-based system^[4] but there is opposition from those who want to take the opportunity for full nuclear disarmament.^[5][6][7]

The term "Trident" is the name of the submarine-launched ballistic missile in British use that delivers a nuclear payload and is widely used to refer to the collective nuclear system as well.^[1][8]

Contents 1 Background 1.1 Policy 1.2 Trident system 2 Replacement system 2.1 Submarines 2.2 Munitions 3 Controversy 3.1 Morality 3.2 Strategic value 3.3 Legality 3.4 Cost 4 References 5 See also 6 External links

[edit] Background

Main article: Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

[edit] Policy

Official policy regarding nuclear weapons is for use as a defensive nuclear deterrent. This refers to the possession of nuclear weapons simply to deter an enemy nuclear attack with the threat of a retaliatory second strike.

The current reasoning for the deterrent comes from the 1998 Strategic Defence Review:

"We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons and continue to play a full role in international efforts to strengthen arms control and prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. However, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security."^[9]

Since the Manhattan Project produced the first nuclear weapons during World War Two, the UK has worked closely with the United States on nuclear strategy. This cooperation was formalised in the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) and has been a key aspect of the special relationship between the two countries.

[edit] Trident system

Since the retirement of the last Royal Air Force WE.177 nuclear bomb in 1998, the British nuclear system has been wholly submarine-based. This fulfills the deterrent value of the system, as an enemy cannot ensure eliminating the entire stockpile in a first strike if a ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) remains undetected.

Since the Strategic Defence Review, the UK has maintained a stockpile of around 200 warheads. In a policy known as "Continuous at Sea Deterrence," at least one Vanguard class SSBN is kept on patrol with up to 16 Trident missiles sharing up to 48 warheads from the stockpile at any given time. The SDR stated this was the minimum adequate deterrent. It is collectively known as the Trident system.^[8] The majority of this system is based in Scotland at HM Naval Base Clyde, which includes the Faslane home of the Vanguard submarines and Coulport nuclear depot.

The oldest submarine of the Vanguard class is expected to remain in service until around 2018 without a refit, prompting the need for a decision on a replacement before the end of the current parliament in 2010 to allow for development time.^[8]

[edit] Replacement system

A December 2006 Ministry of Defence white paper announced that the deterrent should be maintained and outlined measures that would do so until the 2040s. It advocated the currently preferred submarine-based system, as it remained the cheapest and most secure deterrent option available.

Costs for retaining the deterrent were estimated at £15-20 billion based on:

• £11-14 billion for a class of four SSBNs.
• £2-3 billion for refurbishing warheads.
• £2-3 billion for infrastructure.^[4]

[edit] Submarines

Initially, parts of the existing Trident system will be refitted to some extent to prolong their lives. However, the relatively short (five years) life extension potential of the Vanguard class means a new class of SSBNs will replace it in the early 2020s.^[4] There are suggestions that the SSBN fleet may be cut to three hulls if the design could maintain the Continuous at Sea Deterrence principle at that number. The first SSBN would probably take 17 years to be designed and built, making a five year life extension of the Vanguard class necessary. On this basis, a refitted Vanguard class could still shrink by at least one vessel for a period of time before the first replacement SSBN enters service.^[4]

[edit] Munitions

The overall warhead stockpile would be reduced from around 200 warheads to 160. The remaining warheads are expected to last until the mid-2020s, with a decision to either replace or refurbish them taken closer to the time. The government-owned nuclear weapons research company Atomic Weapons Establishment would likely play a key role in either, with over £1 billion being invested between 2005 and 2008 to maintain "key skills and facilities."^[10] The replacement of the Trident missiles was also deferred, as the UK intends to participate in a US programme to lengthen the the missiles' lives from the 2020s through to the 2040s.^[4]

[edit] Controversy

In the lead up to a House of Commons debate and vote on the issue in early 2007,^[3] several opposing parties have voiced their concern on several issues:

[edit] Morality

The possession of nuclear weapons, as a form weapons of mass destruction, has long been criticised in British politics^{[citation needed]} for being immoral. As such, it has been at the core of the peace movement in the UK since the first introduction of nuclear weapons in the 1950s.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has historically been a significant anti-nuclear lobby group since its formation in 1957. As a result, the potential replacement of Trident has naturally been criticised by the CND, coming under their "Scrap Trident" campaign. More recently in 2006, 20 bishops claimed Trident was "anti-God." Other religious leaders, including Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, have questioned the morality of replacing Trident.^[11][6]

Other groups claim the development of new nuclear weapons would undermine Britain's stance with other countries, such as Iran and North Korea, and international nuclear disarmament in general.^[12][6]

[edit] Strategic value

Another reason cited is the claim that the strategic environment has become less dangerous since the development of the deterrent during the Cold War. Consequently, with a diminished nuclear threat towards Britain, the value of having a deterrent to guard against it has fallen as well. However the Ministry of Defence has a declared policy of sub-strategic use which would see, for example, a limited nuclear strike (e.g. one missile with one limited yield warhead) used as either a deterrent to a country from using chemical or biological weapons or as retaliation for having used them.^{[citation needed]}

Outspoken critics on this basis include former Defence Secretaries Malcolm Rifkind^[13] and Denis Healey.^[14]

[edit] Legality

Greenpeace and other groups claim that new development of nuclear weapons would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article 6:^[15]

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."^[16]

[edit] Cost

Several groups, such as the Scottish National Party and some trade unions, prefer the money to spent on public services.^[17][7]

Greenpeace have claimed the recent £1 billion investment in AWE is for secret initial work on developing a replacement.^[15]

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

[edit] External links

• Ballistic Submarines - Royal Navy
• Ministry of Defence
• Atomic Weapons Establishment