A new military covenant: The case for scrapping Trident

By James Maker

Tomorrow, the chancellor will deliver a critically important budget. The lead-up has been dominated by fears over the growing level of public borrowing and the depth of public sector cuts needed to address the deficit. What should be of more pressuring concern to those holding the purse strings of the British economy is the misguided spending commitment to Trident, and the effect that maintaining such a dedication could mean in the future.

The economic and political challenges facing modern Britain have changed quite substantially since the fateful decision was taken in March 2007 to renew Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. Not only is the country emerging from the deepest recession in post-war history, with the prospect of damaging public sector cuts in the pipeline; we are still embroiled in a war in Afghanistan that intensifies day by day.

Such circumstance pushes the financial cost of Trident to the forefront of the political agenda. With an initial cost of between £15-20bn in renewing the system, and the government estimating that they will bill the tax-payer for £76bn (£97bn according to Greenpeace) overall, the questions that must now be asked are whether a) we can justify the expenditure and b) the billions can be redirected into more pressing defence and non-defence needs?

For those on the left, there never really was any answer to the first proposition except no. The case for nuclear disarmament has long been a moral cause, not simply one of financial means. However, recent financial circumstances do strengthen the case yet further.

The right (and many within the Labour Party) still hark back the great days of British imperialism in justifying their claims for renewal. They state that it is the only way Britain is able to push its weight on the international stage and stay safe in a world of instability and ‘rogue’ states.

However, despite these over exaggerated overtures, co-operation with our European neighbours, as well as international attempts to move towards nuclear disarmament, offer Britain an alternative to Trident. It was reported last week that the US and Russia are close to agreeing terms on reducing their nuclear stocks. Moreover, successful talks between France and Britain recently have paved the way forward for co-operation on future defence plans. France has offered to create a joint UK-French nuclear deterrent by sharing submarine patrols. With globalisation, the need for nation-state collaboration increases; national defence cannot evade such pressures.

In answer to my second proposition, with war in Afghanistan still raging and causing heartache for thousands of relatives of armed service personnel, the answer is clearly yes. Although I am not susceptible to the right-wing press stoking the fires of under-funding of the services, there do remain questions of priorities to be asked. At first, Gordon Brown seemed to have escaped the kind of flack that followed Blair’s appearance in front of the Chilcot Inquiry. Alas, it didn’t last long in the world of instant media transparency. Although Brown has long been under attack for underfunding soldiers on the frontline, the latest revelations surrounding his spending calculations only add further weight to the claims. You may or may not agree with the wars the Blair-Brown partnership dragged the country into. I, myself, fall into the latter grouping. Even so, if we are to send men to the frontline, it is quite inhumane to do so without the necessary equipment.

Moreover, there are other equally pressing matters that funding currently earmarked for Trident could be redirected towards. As a society we are increasingly becoming aware of the stresses and strains imposed on our services. Mental illness and stress related issues are increasing year-on-year as we demand more from our soldiers in horrendous conflicts; an estimated 60,000 veterans suffer mental illnesses, with around 8,000 likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder. It falls on the government to provide the services to threat these conditions. As Jon Cruddas argued in a Compass lecture last summer, this implies a new covenant with the military – to improve the working lives of service men and women with additional mental healthcare, equipment, housing and support, which could be paid for by scrapping Trident.

For those who wish to see Britain jettison its nuclear weapons, we are faced with a paradox. In light of the the financial, moral and defence reasons I have outlined above, it would seem folly to commit to renewal -both left and right could find mutual ground on that. Meanwhile, going the whole hog and demanding that we scrap our submarines tomorrow would also result in billions of pounds spent on decommissioning costs.

What the debate needs is for both sides to take stock. With ten to twenty years still left within the existing system, the government should at the very least be aiming to delay plans in order to access the situation in more favourable economic times. With Gordon Brown’s outward commitment to a future nuclear-free world outlined in his speech to the Labour Party Conference last year, alongside moves towards disarmament afoot, scrapping Trident would become the prevailing solution.

An alternative version of this article also appeared at the Compass website.

Related posts:

1. More than scrapping Trident, we need to ditch nuclear weapons altogether
2. Two in three oppose Trident renewal
3. Dannatt: we may not need Trident in the long term
4. A city for a city? Why we must ditch Trident
5. Why we need to cut Trident