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

January 29, 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.

  • 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

  • News Seats and Selections Naz Shah selected in Bradford West

    Naz Shah selected in Bradford West

    Last week there was quite the stir around Bradford West – the seat currently held by Respect MP George Galloway. After being selected only four days prior, Amina Ali announced on Wednesday she would be stepping down as Labour’s candidate, saying that she didn’t want to relocate her children from London. Following this, the party re-opened the women-only application process, which closed on Friday. Candidates were interviewed by the National Executive Committee this morning and the new candidate has now been […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Who profits from company profits – and who should?

    Who profits from company profits – and who should?

    There are many groups who gain when a company makes a profit. You and I may gain via the public purse by the corporation tax paid to the Treasury, the directors will usually gain with high salaries and sometimes bonuses or share options, shareholders will gain by taking a dividend on their shareholding. But one group who don’t usually gain are the company’s staff, paid below the living wage who actually worked to make that profit in the first place. […]

    Read more →
  • News Weekly Survey: Election pledge, Green threat, and London Mayor

    Weekly Survey: Election pledge, Green threat, and London Mayor

    Last week, Ed Miliband announced that a cut to tuition fees would be the fourth Labour election pledge. The fifth and final policy for the pledge card will be announced at the special conference on Saturday, March 14th in Birmingham. But with several topics left, it is unclear what the pledge will be. So far the pledges have been: reduce the deficit, control immigration fairly, invest in the NHS, and cut tuition fees. What topic would you like the fifth […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Beyond Aid: Labour’s ambition for a radical development agenda

    Beyond Aid: Labour’s ambition for a radical development agenda

    This is an edited version of Glenys Kinnock and Stephen Doughty’s introduction to their pamphlet ‘Beyond Aid: Labour’s ambition for a radical development agenda’ which you can read in full, here. The launch event is being held tomorrow (Tuesday 3 March) from 6:30pm-8pm in the Attlee Suite, Portcullis House. To attend the launch event please RSVP by clicking here. The world is changing. The winds of globalisation continue to sweep across the world, gifting us opportunities unimaginable a decade ago. But with these […]

    Read more →
  • News Irish Labour vote for UK/Irish ‘hybrid’ party in Northern Ireland

    Irish Labour vote for UK/Irish ‘hybrid’ party in Northern Ireland

    The Irish Labour Party has voted in favour of reforming the way the party organises in Northern Ireland, which would include changing the nature of the relationship between the Irish and UK parties. At the Irish Labour Party conference this weekend, a motion was put forward recommending the party investigates the possibility of aligning with UK Labour to stand candidates in Northern Ireland – as LabourList covered on Saturday. Currently, Irish Labour has around 350 members in Northern Ireland, but […]

    Read more →