This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/defence-and-security-blog/2013/mar/15/trident-nuclear-disarmament
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Trident: does Britain need it? | Trident: does Britain need it? |
| (4 months later) | |
| Telltale signs about how the most important, but hitherto almost non-existent, public debate about the future of Britain's nuclear weapons will take shape emerged out of the shadows this week. | Telltale signs about how the most important, but hitherto almost non-existent, public debate about the future of Britain's nuclear weapons will take shape emerged out of the shadows this week. |
| Former, but still very active, members of the Whitehall establishment were invited by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) to discuss the "foreign policy implications of the Trident replacement debate". | Former, but still very active, members of the Whitehall establishment were invited by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) to discuss the "foreign policy implications of the Trident replacement debate". |
| They were Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Lord David Hannay, two former UK ambassadors to the UN; Sir Richard Mottram, former top official at the Ministry of Defence and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Lord Gus O'Donnell, the recently retired cabinet secretary. | They were Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Lord David Hannay, two former UK ambassadors to the UN; Sir Richard Mottram, former top official at the Ministry of Defence and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Lord Gus O'Donnell, the recently retired cabinet secretary. |
| No opponent of nuclear weapons — that is no-one who wanted Britain to give up its nuclear arsenal unilaterally — was on the panel though Greenstock came close to it, certainly in some of the telling points he made. The debate was essentially about how, as Hannay put it, the UK could "step down" as opposed to "step off" the nuclear ladder. | No opponent of nuclear weapons — that is no-one who wanted Britain to give up its nuclear arsenal unilaterally — was on the panel though Greenstock came close to it, certainly in some of the telling points he made. The debate was essentially about how, as Hannay put it, the UK could "step down" as opposed to "step off" the nuclear ladder. |
| A wider debate should be triggered by the publication, expected after the local elections in early May, of the "Trident alternatives" paper asked for by the Liberal Democrats as part of the coalition agreement in 2010. | A wider debate should be triggered by the publication, expected after the local elections in early May, of the "Trident alternatives" paper asked for by the Liberal Democrats as part of the coalition agreement in 2010. |
| Conservative ministers, notably David Cameron and his defence secretary, Philip Hammond, sound supremely confident that the paper, drawn up by senior officials in Whitehall's cabinet office, will conclude that any alternative nuclear weapons system to Trident, such as nuclear cruise missiles, would be no cheaper and less "effective" than a Trident system. | Conservative ministers, notably David Cameron and his defence secretary, Philip Hammond, sound supremely confident that the paper, drawn up by senior officials in Whitehall's cabinet office, will conclude that any alternative nuclear weapons system to Trident, such as nuclear cruise missiles, would be no cheaper and less "effective" than a Trident system. |
| Hammond was at it again on Thursday during a visit to Scotland. The continued presence of Trident nuclear weapons was necessary because of potential threats from "rogue states" like Iran and larger strategic forces, he said. | Hammond was at it again on Thursday during a visit to Scotland. The continued presence of Trident nuclear weapons was necessary because of potential threats from "rogue states" like Iran and larger strategic forces, he said. |
| He added, as though providing an unanswerable argument-clincher: "I can promise you that many of the same people who are saying that they don't think we should be renewing Trident would be wagging the finger at a future government if we were under direct threat from a nuclear-armed power and had no way of resisting nuclear blackmail". | He added, as though providing an unanswerable argument-clincher: "I can promise you that many of the same people who are saying that they don't think we should be renewing Trident would be wagging the finger at a future government if we were under direct threat from a nuclear-armed power and had no way of resisting nuclear blackmail". |
| Mottram made a similar point during the IISS debate on Wednesday. Referring to what he called the elephant in the room, he asked what prime minister would be prepared to go down in history as the one, in a future crisis, who had been responsible for giving up Britain's nuclear weapons. | Mottram made a similar point during the IISS debate on Wednesday. Referring to what he called the elephant in the room, he asked what prime minister would be prepared to go down in history as the one, in a future crisis, who had been responsible for giving up Britain's nuclear weapons. |
| In what, if we are not careful, could degenerate into a dispute over who is blackmailing whom, we can be sure that all sorts of implied threats will be quietly whispered into the ears of any minister who dares to question the wisdom of renewing the Trident system. | In what, if we are not careful, could degenerate into a dispute over who is blackmailing whom, we can be sure that all sorts of implied threats will be quietly whispered into the ears of any minister who dares to question the wisdom of renewing the Trident system. |
| The panel was asked by the moderator, Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the IISS disarmament programme, what impact would getting rid of nuclear weapons have on Britain's status as a permanent member of the UN security council. | The panel was asked by the moderator, Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the IISS disarmament programme, what impact would getting rid of nuclear weapons have on Britain's status as a permanent member of the UN security council. |
| None at all, is the answer — not least, as Hannay pointed out, because it would require a unanimous vote of permanent council members to shove one country off. In addition, the idea that North Korea or Pakistan's possession of nukes would somehow make them more likely to be permanent UN security council members was absurd. | None at all, is the answer — not least, as Hannay pointed out, because it would require a unanimous vote of permanent council members to shove one country off. In addition, the idea that North Korea or Pakistan's possession of nukes would somehow make them more likely to be permanent UN security council members was absurd. |
| Influence in the modern world, Greenstock observed, was composed of many things and "nuclear weapons was one of the least relevant". The economy was the most important factor, O'Donnell, an economist, said. | Influence in the modern world, Greenstock observed, was composed of many things and "nuclear weapons was one of the least relevant". The economy was the most important factor, O'Donnell, an economist, said. |
| Trident, continued Greenstock, addressed "only a tiny fraction" of the problems related to the real threats now facing Britain. However, answering questions from the floor by those questioning the very notion of "nuclear deterrence" and the relevance to Britain of a nuclear arsenal at a time its conventional armed forces were being squeezed, Greenstock replied: "Public opinion is not where government instincts are". | Trident, continued Greenstock, addressed "only a tiny fraction" of the problems related to the real threats now facing Britain. However, answering questions from the floor by those questioning the very notion of "nuclear deterrence" and the relevance to Britain of a nuclear arsenal at a time its conventional armed forces were being squeezed, Greenstock replied: "Public opinion is not where government instincts are". |
| A decision about whether to replace the existing fleet of four Trident nuclear ballistic missiles will not be taken until after the general election due in 2015. | A decision about whether to replace the existing fleet of four Trident nuclear ballistic missiles will not be taken until after the general election due in 2015. |
| The Tory leadership wants a new Trident system. The Labour may not dare to oppose such a move. The Liberal Democrats are likely to propose some nuclear disarmament measures. | The Tory leadership wants a new Trident system. The Labour may not dare to oppose such a move. The Liberal Democrats are likely to propose some nuclear disarmament measures. |
| Some were suggested during the IISS debate. Would Britain need a "continuous at sea deterrent", a legacy of the cold war whereby one Trident sub would be on patrol all the time? | Some were suggested during the IISS debate. Would Britain need a "continuous at sea deterrent", a legacy of the cold war whereby one Trident sub would be on patrol all the time? |
| There was a debate about whether deciding to put a nuclear missile submarine to sea during a crisis would actually exacerbate that crisis and give a prime minister an option s/he would prefer not to have to make. | There was a debate about whether deciding to put a nuclear missile submarine to sea during a crisis would actually exacerbate that crisis and give a prime minister an option s/he would prefer not to have to make. |
| Mottram questioned whether there would have to be a "like for like" Trident replacement — suggesting that a new fleet could have fewer missiles, certainly fewer warheads. That is what a British government could decide, and argue that it amounted to a significant disarmament step. Mottram did not rise to the top of Whitehall for nothing. | Mottram questioned whether there would have to be a "like for like" Trident replacement — suggesting that a new fleet could have fewer missiles, certainly fewer warheads. That is what a British government could decide, and argue that it amounted to a significant disarmament step. Mottram did not rise to the top of Whitehall for nothing. |
| Renewing Trident would cost £100bn according to conservative estimates, £25bn of which would be spent initially on building the submarines. That would take a big slice from the MoD's equipment programme. | Renewing Trident would cost £100bn according to conservative estimates, £25bn of which would be spent initially on building the submarines. That would take a big slice from the MoD's equipment programme. |
| However, if it is spread over a 50 year lifespan, the average annual cost of Trident system would amount to £2bn a year, said Greenstock. The suggestion was this is not a great proportion of the defence budget. The implication was that Britain could afford it. | However, if it is spread over a 50 year lifespan, the average annual cost of Trident system would amount to £2bn a year, said Greenstock. The suggestion was this is not a great proportion of the defence budget. The implication was that Britain could afford it. |
| The question left unanswered is just who is Trident deterring? | The question left unanswered is just who is Trident deterring? |
| Hammond refers to rogue states and a resurgent Russia and that somehow, alone in the world, Britain would be uniquely subjected to nuclear blackmail if it gave up the bomb. Mottram referred to a "bolt from the blue". | Hammond refers to rogue states and a resurgent Russia and that somehow, alone in the world, Britain would be uniquely subjected to nuclear blackmail if it gave up the bomb. Mottram referred to a "bolt from the blue". |
| Others referred to an uncertain future. A kind of fear of the unknown. | Others referred to an uncertain future. A kind of fear of the unknown. |
| The notion that Britain would be suddenly vulnerable, more than any other non-nuclear state, is surely fanciful. | The notion that Britain would be suddenly vulnerable, more than any other non-nuclear state, is surely fanciful. |
| The speakers on the IISS panel acknowledged that Britain was a relatively insignificant country, unlikely to be singled out by any potential adversary. How relevant is a British nuclear arsenal – weapons which were of no use militarily, Tony Blair said in his autobiography – and how credible a deterrent, were questions that were not answered. | The speakers on the IISS panel acknowledged that Britain was a relatively insignificant country, unlikely to be singled out by any potential adversary. How relevant is a British nuclear arsenal – weapons which were of no use militarily, Tony Blair said in his autobiography – and how credible a deterrent, were questions that were not answered. |
| I fear they were not properly addressed because the answers would be too embarrassing. | I fear they were not properly addressed because the answers would be too embarrassing. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |