Missiles and missed opportunities

By Tracey Cheetham

Nuclear weapons have been part of the UK’s defence programme since 1952, with Trident in place since 1994. The arguments for and against the UK having a nuclear weapons system have rumbled on for a long time – but now, with the deep cuts being inflicted by the coalition, it is time to look more closely at the moral and economic justifications for maintaining Trident.

Trident consists of four nuclear submarines, of which there is one on active duty at all times. Each of the Trident submarines can carry forty-eight nuclear warheads with an explosive power of up to 100 kilotonnes. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945, had an estimated power of 12 – 15 kilotonnes. The true number of people it killed will probably never be known, but estimates of the five-year death toll exceed 200,000 people.

In 1968 the British Government ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, (NPT); currently 189 countries have done so and as part of this, they agree to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, to work towards complete nuclear disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Indeed, Article VI of the treaty states:

“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.”

So the UK has an obligation to actively pursue disarmament. With Trident requiring such enormous investment, what a perfect opportunity to do so, yet the Coalition insists it is committed to the renewal of Trident and Liam Fox has insisted that he will not include it in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that is underway.

The cost of replacing the Trident submarines is estimated at £20billion and estimates for the lifetime cost of maintenance of the system exceed £80billion, so surely with the level of cuts being imposed by this government across the board, Trident must be included in the SDSR.

In June, Dr Liam Fox promised that the nuclear element of our defence systems was safe from the chancellor’s axe and recently he was still stating that it would not be included in the general defence budget. Yet now George Osborne says:

“I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget.”

So which is it? With public spending being cut to the bone and the effect that will have on the lives of the public, is it right to prioritise a not-likely-to-be-used nuclear weapons programme? Do we actually need a nuclear submarine on active patrol at all times?

Osborne has opened up another dilemma for Fox here. If Trident is to be included in the general defence budget, where will he find the money for the equipment and resources needed to supply our troops? As Dr Fox himself admitted, earlier this month:

“To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are currently doing in terms of capability.”

Perhaps that is the real reason for the hasty withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan. Is it a choice, Afghanistan or Trident?

Nonetheless, it definitely is a choice of which has greater priority between Trident and public services. It is a question that Nick Clegg asked himself last year, and arrived at this conclusion:

Given that we need to ask ourselves big questions about what our priorities are, we have arrived at the view that a like-for-like Trident replacement is not the right thing to do.”

This was a flagship Lib Dem policy – and one that many in the Labour Party agreed with. So what changed his mind? Was it again the lure of power? Is this another example of Clegg forfeiting principles for portfolio?

In the current economic climate ordinary people are facing a bleak future of stripped-back public services, job losses and withdrawal of welfare. To push ahead with the replacement of Trident and the financial commitment it requires without a review is irresponsible, a poor use of available funds and, as with many things that the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg are doing, unprincipled.