Trident isn’t a simplistic ‘for or against’ debate

29th January, 2013 2:41 pm

Nuclear weapons are a divisive issue. In fact, in the current debate over whether or not the UK should replace Trident, there is only one point of near-universal agreement: the decision must be made on national security grounds. Does Trident meet our current and expected future security threats? That is the serious, cross-party debate which has begun to develop in Parliament in recent weeks.

While some might wish it was a simplistic ‘for or against’ debate, or one of ‘idealistic moralists versus hard-headed realists’, the debate is no longer that easy to caricature.

Recent weeks have seen contributions from former Defence Secretaries, Navy Ministers and Chiefs of the General Staff, as well as MPs from both sides of the House questioning the future of Trident.

In last week’s House of Lords debate, crossbencher Lord Bramall, former Chief of the General Staff, said, Trident ‘has not and, indeed, would not deter any of the threats and challenges now more economic than military likely to face this country in the foreseeable or even longer-term future’. In a measured contribution to another debate, it was fascinating to hear Conservative MP Crispin Blunt arguing that we ‘want a small pinpoint weapon, not a strategic weapon that would wreak massive and unacceptable collateral damage in the process.’

But the debate is evolving within the Labour Party as well.

Ed Miliband’s advisor Stewart Wood, said, ‘relying excessively on nuclear weapons to do the deterring is not only more hazardous, but less effective in a world where the threats we face are changing in character’ and whilst continuing to see a role for Trident in the immediate future, is keen to make progress on disarmament. He also asked the government whether it was ‘alive to making progress on defence concepts that are less dependent on nuclear weapons’.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary when the Commons voted through replacing Trident in 2007, believes ‘relevant factors have changed’ and he has now openly challenged the frontbench position: ‘The time is now right, in my view, to change our posture and to step down from continuous at-sea deterrence. This would demonstrate that nuclear weapons are playing less and less of a role in our national security strategy’.

For others, cuts to conventional armed forces capability has brought this to the fore, as stated by candidate Clive Lewis in another article for the New Statesman. Lord Lea countered the ‘uncertain future’ justification used for Trident by questioning cuts to conventional equipment citing a ‘lack of knowledge about conventional needs and available resources so far in advance’.

These contributions clearly express openness to a cool rethink of nuclear weapons policy while remaining wary of right-wing media attempts to paint Labour as weak on defence.

So where will the party go? That it will assess the Cabinet Office’s Trident Alternatives Review is welcome, though Labour should not limit itself to accepting the Lib Dem framework of alternative delivery platforms.

Trident remains one of the few areas where goodwill remains towards the Lib Dems because they are challenging the status quo. Many of those voters are the same ones who left Labour not only over the Trident vote in 2007, but also over Iraq – which Ed Miliband has clearly addressed.

Austerity and cuts both to conventional forces and wider public services have helped provide the political space to re-examine Trident, while an assessment of the security arguments further undermines the case for replacement.

Those who support Trident are welcome to argue it – and they do so frequently – but it is time the Labour frontbench opened itself to a serious internal discussion of its policy on Trident.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • MonkeyBot5000

    Arguably, the best deterrent is one that your enemy thinks you might actually use and will leave your enemy worse off than you. The only enemies we’d face in a nuclear war are larger than us and would have a much better chance of surviving than us.

    As for a non-nuclear enemies, you can’t nuke an insurgency and the amount we spend annually maintaining Trident is about half of what we spent each year prosecuting the war in Afghanistan.

    • Jiesheng Li

      Um so whne Afghanistan ends, what Trident is great? How can it insure when the terrorists bombed London in 7/7?

  • Brumanuensis

    For the life of me, I can’t understand why it is rational, from a military perspective, to gut our conventional forces and protect a useless white elephant that exists for no other purpose than to ensure that the French aren’t the sole nuclear-armed European nation.

    • MonkeyBot5000

      Especially when we already have rail access to their capital.

  • i_bid

    Completely agree. Without being saddled with such ridiculously expensive nothings, it’ll help enormously with Labour’s costing of future policies, and if accused of being soft on defence, Labour can reply that they’ll re-employ many of the soldiers sacked under this government – although careful not to just re-direct all savings back to Defence (housing, welfare etc are in much dire need). Having said that, I won’t hold my breath.

  • robertcp

    Trident is a waste of money and we should get rid of it.

  • uglyfatbloke

    It is a simple question..do we want a costly weapon with no functionality or do we want to spend the money on something useful. From a purely military perspective it was always a simple question really, but trident makes politicians feel important, so that’s why we have it.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I do not support nuclear weapons and wish that we did not have them. I also wish that they did not exist at all and that nobody had them, but it impossible to “unconventional” something.

    So I think I am a multi-lateralist. If we unilaterally disarm, we are no safer than we were before. It seems to me to be a basic principle of negotiation that you never concede something without some measure of reciprocity: if you do you are foolish.

    I also think that it is not the missiles being replaced at this vast cost, it is the submarines that carry them, and so the new submarines will carry the old missiles. But that is possibly too pedantic, as the submarines have only one purpose.

Latest

  • Comment Featured Owen Smith: Three leadership hustings is not enough – let’s have one in every UK region

    Owen Smith: Three leadership hustings is not enough – let’s have one in every UK region

    Owen Smith has today written to Jeremy Corbyn asking him to back a plan to hold “at least one” leadership hustings in each UK region.   Dear Jeremy, In less than two months’ time, Labour Party members and supporters will be casting their votes for who should be the next Leader of our Party. It’s the most important decision our Party will have taken in a generation and will define our future as an effective opposition and party of government.   I […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News McDonnell in dramatic TV plea to warring factions to “stop this now”

    McDonnell in dramatic TV plea to warring factions to “stop this now”

    John McDonnell today claimed a small group of people are willing to “destroy” Labour simply to remove Jeremy Corbyn and made a dramatic appeal direct to MPs and members to bring an end to the in-fighting. The shadow Chancellor sounded emotional as he demanded “stop this now” as the Labour leadership faced questions over allegations one of their staff had made an “unauthorised” entry into the office of a former shadow Cabinet minister. McDonnell, who was appearing on the Andrew Marr […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Seema Malhotra accuses Corbyn aide over office entry

    Seema Malhotra accuses Corbyn aide over office entry

    A former shadow Cabinet minister has accused aides to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell of violating her security by making an “unauthorised” entry into her office. Seema Malhotra has demanded Commons officials launch an investigation after accusing the leader’s staff of effectively breaking into her office and claimed her own researchers had suffered “harassment”. Malhotra, who resigned as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury last month, has written to John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, saying the entry undermined the […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn condemns abuse as 40 female MPs demand action over “disgusting” incidents

    Corbyn condemns abuse as 40 female MPs demand action over “disgusting” incidents

    Jeremy Corbyn will today confront claims of abuse in the Labour Party as he uses a series of events around Britain to appeal to left-wing voters to help him retain the leadership and deliver a “social movement”. Corbyn, who has faced claims that he has done too little to tackle personal abuse in the party, will repeat his condemnation of harassment and threats after more than 40 female Labour MPs wrote to him demanding he take action to tackle an “extremely worrying […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe The EU referendum showed that UKIP is now the biggest threat to Labour

    The EU referendum showed that UKIP is now the biggest threat to Labour

    For a long time now commentators and Labour figures have regularly remarked on the growing cultural and political distance between the Labour Party and the core Labour vote, particularly outside London. This fact was clearly demonstrated in the EU referendum, where Labour heartlands overwhelmingly rejected Labour’s stance on EU membership and all things associated with it.  This should serve as an immediate and urgent wake up call to the Labour Party. During the referendum campaign I served as General Secretary of […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit