The debate around Trident renewal has been dominated by myths for too long

Last week, writing for LabourList, the Shadow International Development Secretary, Diane Abbott, said that the decision on replacing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent needs debating properly. I couldn’t agree more.

For far too long, the debate surrounding the replacement of the four Vanguard-class of submarines that currently provide the UK’s deterrent has been dominated by myths rather than fact. This needs addressing, and I would urge anyone with an interest in nuclear security (and I would say that’s everyone) to demand that this important debate is rooted in fact.

We must all approach this decision with the seriousness it deserves. I believe the UK’s deterrent has been a mainstay of peace in Europe that everyone born since the Second World War has always known.

I support international efforts toward multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and I would like to see greater progress toward a world without nuclear weapons. Indeed, I am very proud of the huge progress made under the previous Labour Government in nuclear disarmament through international frameworks. This saw the number of operationally available warheads almost halved, and the number of deployed warheads on each submarine reduced.

These efforts also resulted in the UK becoming the only recognised nuclear-armed Non-Proliferation Treaty country to possess just one nuclear system, when the WE-177 freefall tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn. This was important action towards multilateral nuclear disarmament and the current Government should ensure that Britain continues to play a leading role in moves toward this ultimate goal.

Definitions of deterrence vary, but a popular one, put forward by the prominent scholar, the late Kenneth Waltz, is that “nuclear weapons dissuade states from going to war more surely than conventional weapons do”. Underpinning a state’s ability to deter possible aggressors is the credibility and capability of its deterrence.  Nuclear submarines are complicated bits of kit and take years to design and build.  That is why the decision to replace the Vanguard-class of nuclear ballistic missile submarines has to be taken now.

Although commonly referred to as “the renewal or replacement of Trident”, the decision being taken now relates only to procuring a successor to the Vanguard-class of submarines which is the current platform for the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Replacement of the delivery system, the Trident II D5 missile, is not part of the programme and opportunities remain to reduce the UK’s stockpile of warheads.

Unfortunately, Diane has cited many of the myths surrounding this debate, including that the money spent on Trident could fully fund all A&E services in our hospitals for 40 years. Claims like this cannot go unaddressed if we are going to debate this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

In 2012-13, in England alone, there were 5.3 million emergency admissions to hospitals, representing around 67 per cent of hospital bed days, and costing approximately £12.5 billion. If this cost was maintained for the next 40 years, at today’s prices, the cost of emergency admissions for this period would equate to approximately £500 billion, well over five times some estimates of how much it will cost to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent.  

Some are giving an impression that if the Vanguard-successor programme was cancelled, more than £100bn would suddenly be available to the Treasury, immediately ending austerity. But this figure is an estimate of how much retaining the deterrent will cost over the entire lifespan of the submarines.

Based on the current defence budget, we spend approximately 2.3bn per year on the UK’s nuclear deterrent – which is roughly equivalent to what is spent currently on the Attendance Allowance, or Carers Allowance.

This is still a huge sum of money, but we have to look at it also in the context of what we are trying to achieve with our allies in securing peace. Europe has not known war for 71 years, and our nuclear deterrent, along with the European Union, NATO and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has helped to secure this peace.

Diane is right that the UK’s independent deterrent cannot ease some of the greatest threats the world faces today such as climate change, epidemics and food and water insecurity. It also can’t protect the millions who know all too well the horrors of war in places like Syria and Yemen. There are no quick fixes for the complex problems faced in many parts of the world, but we have a duty to help maintain stability where we can.

International order is, in part, based on nuclear states maintaining a deterrent. Today, Russia and China continue to develop delivery systems that would give them the capability to change the global balance of power if western nuclear states suddenly decided to get rid of their own deterrent.

Both Europe and the Middle East are facing the biggest crises we have seen for a generation and other nuclear states continue to update and develop nuclear weapon delivery systems. We need to work with the international community to address these issues, but international institutions, like the UN and the OSCE – created in the wake of the Second World War and the advent of nuclear weapons – are the only multinational forums where real progress can be made.

The current global balance of power underpins the effectiveness of these institutions, and many worry that dropping the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent could remove Britain from having influence in future multilateral talks and also undermine our ability to help resolve conflict worldwide.

If we want to see a world without nuclear weapons it is through these institutions that progress will be made. But we would be in danger of undermining the effectiveness of international institutions, diminishing the likelihood of cooperation and conditions for orderly multilateral negotiation, if we were to make nuclear disarmament decisions in isolation.

As a former Minister for Veterans and as a Commonwealth War Graves Commissioner I have met many men and women who have known the world at war.  In Parliament, those of us arguing for the UK to retain its deterrent are doing so with the hope that future generations will know only peace.