Britain’s nuclear deterrent
Parliament has just voted to renew its Trident missile programme. What does that mean for Britain?
What does our deterrent consist of?
Until the 1990s, Britain had a large nuclear arsenal – not only on submarines but also on RAF bombers and Royal Navy carriers, while the Army had tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons. Today that arsenal consists of just four submarines, each armed with up to eight Trident II D5 ballistic nuclear missiles. By contrast, France – Europe’s only other nuclear power – has four squadrons of planes with nuclear weapons, as well as a nuclear-armed fleet of subs. And unlike France, Britain’s nuclear deterrent is heavily dependent on US technology.
Are all four submarines out at sea?
No. They work on a rota system called continuous at-sea deterrence, meaning that while one is out, on a three-monthlong patrol, another is undergoing repair, a third is on exercises and a fourth is preparing to relieve the first. Since April 1969, at least one Royal Navy nuclear sub has always been out on patrol somewhere in the world, ready for the Prime Minister to give the order to attack. At that point, one or more missiles would be fired from beneath the waves, blasting off into low orbit. From there, each missile would fire up to 12 independently targetable thermonuclear warheads back towards Earth. Trident (which replaced the less powerful Polaris missile) has a range of 7,500 miles; and each Vanguard-class sub (which are twice as long as a jumbo jet) carries up to 40 warheads – or nearly 300 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
Why do we have Trident?
Its predecessor, Polaris, was developed during the Cold War to deter “acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means”. The idea was that any major attack on the UK by the Soviet Union, with its vast conventional forces and nuclear armoury, would be discouraged, since losses from a counter-attack would be so destructive. Secret files released in 2010 show Trident was designed to kill an estimated ten million Russians. And where land-based nuclear weapons are difficult to hide and vulnerable to surprise attacks, subs are mobile and hard to detect. Each Vanguard carries a sealed letter of “last resort” from the PM, giving instructions to follow in the event of a devastating attack on the UK (see box).
Why was there a vote now?
Because the four current submarines, which have been in service since the 1990s, will end their working lives in the early 2030s. MPS backed plans to renew Trident in 2007, under Labour, and £3.9bn has already been spent designing four new subs, known as the Successor class, to replace the Vanguards. But the ultimate decision to go ahead was not taken until this week; it will be, in the words of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, “one of the largest government investment programmes”.
How much will it cost?
Officially, the Successor submarines will cost £31bn, with another £10bn for contingencies, and further billions for running costs. The Government estimates it will eat up 6% of the annual defence budget – somewhere between £100bn and £200bn over its lifetime. And of course, the Ministry of Defence and its chosen contractors have a poor record of keeping to budgets.
Do we really need it?
Strictly speaking, no. Even if you accept the need for a nuclear deterrent, the UK is protected by Nato’s “nuclear umbrella” – that is, America’s array of nuclear weapons. And in any case, it’s not as if Trident is really our “own” deterrent. Though “operationally independent”, it is heavily reliant on the US. The missiles, made by Lockheed Martin in California, are maintained by the US Navy at a base in Georgia. The warheads are made at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston in Berkshire, but to a US design and by a consortium including two US companies. And politically, it is nearly impossible to imagine the UK using Trident without US approval.
So why do we have it?
A renewed programme would run until the 2050s, and who knows what the geopolitical situation might be then? Russia is aggressive, China unpredictable, nuclear weaponry is proliferating: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are all already armed. Trident doesn’t just provide the ultimate insurance policy, it’s a symbol of Britain’s “role in the world”, befitting a key US ally and UN Security Council member. The programme is also valued for preserving state-of-the-art military/industrial expertise, along with some 30,000 jobs, many at BAE Systems’ shipyard in Barrow-in-furness, and at Rolls-royce, which makes the nuclear propulsion units. More controversially, HM Naval Base Clyde, the submarine base at Faslane, is Scotland’s largest industrial site.
Why is that so controversial?
Because the SNP has long pledged to “order nuclear weapons and installations off our soil”, a policy given renewed relevance by the EU referendum result. Moving the submarine base from Faslane, and the nuclear munitions facility from nearby Coulport, would incur, says the MOD, “a huge and unnecessary cost”. There are few suitable sites in England and Wales, though moving the subs to Devonport in Plymouth, and the weapons site to Cornwall,
near Falmouth, have been mooted.
Are there alternatives to Trident?
The Government considered various options for a scaled-down armoury – such as missiles fired from land, or surface ships, or aircraft – and deemed all to be more vulnerable; and, as they’d need to be developed from scratch, more expensive. Besides, though Trident is a very advanced system – “the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you”, as Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey put it – Britain already has the smallest capability of any of the main nuclear weapons states. The Government also argues that renewing existing systems does not represent a breach of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty – though as a gesture, it will hardly be likely to encourage other states to disarm.