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.

  • 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 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.


  • Comment Europe Featured Labour Leave has no confidence in David Cameron’s EU renegotiation

    Labour Leave has no confidence in David Cameron’s EU renegotiation

    The Labour campaign to leave the European Union has been launched. ‘Labour Leave’ is a Labour campaign, run by, staffed by and funded by Labour members. We would like to invite all Labour members, trade unionists, supporters, socialist societies and affiliates to join our campaign to secure a ‘leave’ vote in the coming referendum on our EU membership. The Labour Party does not have a single view on our membership of the EU and the Labour Party isn’t united behind […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Austerity is damaging women’s mental health. Labour must act to improve it

    Austerity is damaging women’s mental health. Labour must act to improve it

    Women experience mental health differently to men. They suffer higher rates of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And the factors that cause these are likely to get worse because of the government’s austerity agenda. So if Labour is to continue being the party that works for women, we must focus on mental health provision, or risk losing ground in our fight for gender equality. The Mental Health Foundation highlights how women are twice as likely to experience anxiety. […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Jeremy Corbyn: “Tory conference was a feast of spin and deception”

    Jeremy Corbyn: “Tory conference was a feast of spin and deception”

    The Conservative Conference in Manchester proved that the party were still “the same old Tories”, according to Jeremy Corbyn. During a speech in Glasgow tonight, where he will also set out his support for “decent” businesses who support their employees, Corbyn will call out the Tories’ “fake claims to support equality” and say that ministers’ speeches “let the mask slip” to reveal the party’s true colours. He will also say that David Cameron’s “crude personal attacks” on Corbyn show that […]

    Read more →
  • News Sadiq edges ahead in close early London Mayor poll

    Sadiq edges ahead in close early London Mayor poll

    Sadiq Khan is ahead of Zac Goldsmith by 51% to 49% in the first YouGov poll for the Evening Standard since both were confirmed as their party’s candidates. It is also the first time that Khan has been ahead of Goldsmith in a head-to-head polled by YouGov (other pollsters have shown him with leads previously). A Khan/Goldsmith run-off in June revealed a tie, while Goldsmith edged it in July and August polling – suggesting that early momentum may have shifted […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn to set out pro-“decent business” agenda in Glasgow speech

    Corbyn to set out pro-“decent business” agenda in Glasgow speech

    Jeremy Corbyn will tonight praise ethical and responsible businesses, in a speech at a Scottish Labour fundraiser in Glasgow. He will praise employers who “respect their workers” and “don’t lock out trade unions”. It is one of the first signs of what a Labour pro-business agenda under Corbyn might looks like, as he outlines the kind of business practice he thinks the party “should celebrate”. He will also criticise the fallout from 2008’s financial crisis, which he says was caused […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends