I will be supporting the government in the debate on the replacement for Trident. Today has been a bit frantic and I haven’t yet written a speech for tomorrow but if I can catch the Speakers eye I will make a few points in the chamber. Briefly, out of deference to Bob Piper, these are the points that I think make the case for retaining a nuclear deterrent:
1. We live in an uncertain world. No one knows what enemies we might face in the next 30 years.
2. Such enemies could be armed with nuclear or other mass-destruction weapons.
3. Aggressive dictatorships have few scruples than liberal democracies. They are far more likely to use nuclear weapons if they possess them.
4. No amount of conventional force can compensate for the military disadvantage faced by a non-nuclear country against a nuclear country.
Giving up the nuclear deterrent would entail a massive gamble that this country will never face a nuclear strike or attack by a major military power. It’s a risk that no responsible government should ever take.
31 comments ↓
Tom, I’d like to deal with each point in turn.
1. One thing is certain, that 30 years is a long time in weapons systems and requirements. Some systems are flexible and adaptable. For example, look at the B52, Vulcan or Victor to name but 2. However, a replacement for the Vanguard SSBNs is just that, a ballistic missle sub. Sure, it could be modified for use as a cruise missile launcher, but that’s about it. It might also be worth noting at this point, that the proposed replacement for the Trident D5 missile system has shorter range, can carry fewer warheads and can be fitted with conventional warheads. Until that replacement is in place, the USN is continuing with the Ohio class of SSBNs. Meanwhile the government is advocating the development and deployment of a new nuclear submarine that may well require, as a minimum, significant re-engineering after 18 years, or around 60% of anticipated lifespan.
And then there’s the need to replace the warheads currently deployed on Trident in about 15 years time, and again when the Trident missile is replaced.
Any replacement for the Trident missile system (inc submarines) is a very expensive one-trick pony.
2. The real likelihood is the use of a nuclear device or WMD by a terrorist group or similar body. The nature of the global economy is such that the likelihood of one state attacking the UK is very slim in the extreme. In fact I reckon my chances of winning the lottery are better than the odds on this country being attacked by another state deploying WMDs.
3. On what evidence do you base this assertion? Since the Trinity test, only 2 nuclear weapons have been deployed in combat, both by the USA which wasn’t an aggressive dictatorship. On the other hand, we do have evidence that posession of nuclear weapons tends to give encouragement to the desires of aggressive dictarships to own such weapons systems.
4. As far as I can tell, the members of the nuclear club include the USA, former USSR, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea. With Iran a wannabe member (perhaps). Now there are 192 signatory members of the UN, and around 5% are nuclear powers of some shape or form. Given the difficulties in developing a combat-deployable nuclear weapons system, just which of the current (or potential) club members do you think likely to attack us?
Retaining a nuclear deterrent is putting all our eggs in one basket, then tying one hand behind our back. In an uncertain world, what is needed is flexibility and adaptability, something a Trident replacement would fail to provide. If we must spend billions on defence systems, then at least put the money where there may be some perceived benefit rather than into a weapon system designed to fight the last war (which didn’t happen anyway).
Tom,
I would argue that we should refurbish the current arsenal (extend the life of the missiles). The geopolitics are in a flux, but we should remain committed to disarmament.
Still, it’s great to see you explain why you will vote with the government.
So we have nuclear weapons as a deterrent (only other nations have thenm as weapons of mass destruction). When I say ‘we’ that is based on the assumtion that ‘we’ actually have a nuclear deterrent as opposed to paying for a nuclear deterrent under the control of the U.S., but in reality ‘we’ have no independence. Our possession of these WMD increases the desire of others (Iran, North Korea) to also want to possess them, assured in the knowledge that they are only doing the same as us, therefore removing any moral authority we could ever wish to exercise over them, and increasing the possibility that someone, somewhere will precipitate the wholesale destruction of most of our planet. Frankly, even without the obscene cost of these weapons, money that could be put to far better use in serving humanity, I think this decision is a madness.
In the event of a nuclear strike on mainland UK, if we have had the foresight to launch our missiles beforehand what purpose does that serve? Making them feel as dead as we do?
Tom,
Why did you bother?
If I had a vote I would also vote for retention. It seems to me that nuclear weapons have been far more successful in keeping the peace in Europe in my lifetime than ‘conventional’ ones have been (compare the sixty years since 1947 with the ditto before).
It is unfortunate that the only way we can not use these dreadful weapons is to have them but it is curious that people seem more comfortable about us acquiring ‘conventional’ weapons that we will use than they are about Trident that we won’t use.
The idea that what Britain does will have much impact on other world leaders who have or are trying to obtain nuclear weapons harks back to our imperialist past and shows a misunderstanding of modern global politics.
Do opponents really want Europe to be the only major power base without access to these weapons (or completely reliant on the French) in an uncertain world? In the longer term I’d like to see control of them pass to a European foreign ministry but this ain’t going to happen anytime soon…
Dear Tom
Did you put those points to those who elected you to represent them…….and the result of the debate(s) was …………….?
Peter,
like every Labour PPC Tom ran for election on a Manifesto that said Labour was “committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent”.
MPs are not delegates from their GCs to Parliament. They are not even delegates from their electorates.
Iran only wants a nuclear reactor so as it can produce its own ‘elctricity’.
It has built 20 of these ‘electricity’ producing plants around their Country.
Russia has offered to supply Iran with the means to produce its ‘electricity’ without the suspicion its arousing for enriching Uranium that can be used for a ‘Nuclear Deterrent’(WMD).
Iran has declined the offer.
MPs have a duty to reflect the wider opinion that is suspicious of Radical Countries, and as opinion polls and elections have always observed, the public err on the side of caution and will dismiss those that have none.
Tom is right in his approach.
It’s a hard choice that goes well beyond his own Constituency and into the corridors of those Countries that are defying the wishes of the UN, its Security Council and Non-Proliferation Treaties drawn up by them.
The Labour Party is a Multilateralist Party and not a Unilateralist Party. Ask Neil for the reasons why (he had plenty of time on his hands to find some).
Gary
Yes, but surely the question is not so much do we need nuclear deterrence, but do we need TRIDENT nuclear deterrence ?
Will it be what is required in 30 years time ?
Tom, I always test this kind of reasoning by imagining the same words being spoken by the Prime Minister of Ireland or Switzerland. Can you explain how the points you have listed would not apply to them as well as us – or is the difference that by having nuclear weapons we are a target and they, not having them, are not? Surely a blindingly obvious justification for getting rid of them as soon as possible?
Tom – you are absolutely right in your analysis.
It is a shame that discipline seems to have gone from a large chunk of the parliamentary Labour Party who seem hell-bent on causing Blair a bloody nose. Remember that one of the pre-requisites for being routed at the next election is a party lacking discipline and fighting amongst itself rather than for what it believes, e.g. the Tories 1997, Labour 2009?
Basically if the PLP votes against Trident then the PLP is not electable at the next election because they are happy to take a huge gamble with my and my childrens security in the name of petty intra-party politics or some moral relativism
I agree with you logic for nuclear deterrence – but it is a different logic from that used for the original Trident programme. Surely we need something other than expensive submarine based nuclear deterrents – if we are spending so much money surely we are allowed some choices.
The real question is whether spending x billions of pounds on weapons that we say are impossible to imagine using, rather than on peaceful poverty reduction programmes.
Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral and largely pointless.
I wonder if Swedes, Germans, and Danes lie awake at night worrying about their lack of a nuclear deterrence?
Probably not…
Please can someone provide a scenario where firing a nuclear weapon helps us?
That’s all very well Tom. I disagree with most of it as 170 countries are doing just fine and staying safe without these damned things. But what is all the hurry anyway. Our subs are hardly used compared to US ones (with 44 year life) and some reckon their mothballed existence means they are good to go for many many decades. Replacing a few bits here and there. And normal maintenance and remedial schedules.
Why today? Why before May? Why this year? Why this parliament? Why this decade? Why at all is another matter. But why now?
Luke: Tom and NL are meeting this bogus and weaselly “manifesto commitment” by NOT SCRAPPING Trident. they don’t need to vote for £75 bn of expenditure today to meet that vague commitment. Stop pretending. Be a man! We’re getting Trident because you’re strident. There is no other reason.
Dear Tom
I hope you won’t mind me saying to Luke via your blog that I am sure you understand the issue I raised about representation and local even if he (Luke) chooses not to. I would hope that you have both read the detailed results of the LabOUR/YouGov polls of Labour Party current and lapsed members last year. There were some very illuminating findings about expectations of our elected representatives. These clearly show a rather more sophisticated outlook about the role of their MPs on the part of members than Luke’s rather facile suggestions.
The Denman amendment suggests he is rather more sensitive to this very real issue than our mutual friend in Hackney North. Question: what do you think?
“We live in an uncertain world. No one knows what enemies we might face in the next 30 years….”
When potential future threats are the central rationale for renewing our nuclear capability, this effectively concedes that complete disarmament, as required under Article VI of the NNPT, will never happen. You can’t realistically argue that you’re committed in principle to complete disarmament if you’re retaining nuclear weapons to protect against threats which don’t currently exist. It’s an argument without end.
I’d like to know if you’ve considered what message this decision will send to the 170+ non-nuclear signatories to the NNPT? How can we expect to have the moral authority to demand that others abide by the non-proliferation pillar of the NNPT if we have no intention of doing anything other than pay lip service to Article VI?
(For the record, I’ve made this point elsewhere today too.)
I agree with Bob Piper.
However there is also a more fundamental point that is omni-present in any issue remotely concerned with current flashpoints around the globe and the potential for further conflict. It is the injustice, poverty, and death amongst millions of our fellow citizens around the planet.
If we need the deterrent because people want to attack us, then frankly I’m hardly surprised, given the distinct lack of concern shown in the “developed world” over the plight of so many fellow human beings – no wonder they’re p*ssed off.
Address and then tackle the fundamental problems and the whole basis for the need for nuclear weapons melts away…..
‘There were 98 lame ducks sitting on a wall,
98 lame ducks, sitting on a wall,
and if one lame duck, should accidently (thinks he speaks for all),
There’d be no Labour Party out there representing all’.
Gary
NB. To all Labour and serial rebels (whatever happened to them?)
now who’s a lame duck?? quack quack!
[...] Light bloggage this week due to workload and the impending onset of a head cold, but I can’t pass up the opportunity to comment on the vote to ‘in principle’ commission a replacement for Trident and Tom Watson’s suggestion that the following, heavily fisked, points make the argument in favour of this expensive commitment. 1. We live in an uncertain world. No one knows what enemies we might face in the next 30 years. [...]
Tom:
My full comments are here – but to quickly summarise my views, and respond to a few points raised in comments.
1. Yes, the NNPT’s aspirations of complete disarmament are unrealistic. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, I’m afraid, and the only realistic way of moving to a position where all nation states leave the nuclear club would be via a global deterrent maintained under the aegis of a supranational organisation with a brief to nuke anyone who tries it on.
2. Should we replace Trident? IMHO, no – not because there isn’t a case for the retention of an independent nuclear capability but because Trident is the wrong system for the UK’s long-term needs.
Unless you’re up with the real big players (US, Russia, China), strategic weapons systems like Trident are a waste of time and money and make no rational sense.
We’ve made the wrong decision here because we’re ducking the real issues – the case for retaining an independent capability and the case for Trident 2 are not one and the same, which is why this question should have been debated more widely even at the risk of exposing divisions in the party.
Gary:
Do shut up, please. This isn’t about Blair, its about whether its right to commit £65bn over 30 years to a weapons system that may very well not suit our real needs.
I doubt very much that any of those who voted against the government on this did so simply to try and give Blair a bloody nose and it really is rather stupid to try and suggest otherwise.
Unity, I am so sorry to have upset you (hollow apology out of the way.
I don’t agree with you that some were out to get Blair, they most certainly were. Let’s see the list and let’s see how many sacked are on it)
Remember Unity, Multilateralism is an ‘OLD LABOUR’ pledge and has won us three election victories.
800,000 children lifted out of poverty and in new schools,warm pensioners and patients in new hospitals have benefitted as a consequence and much more than I have.
Have a good day (as they say in the US of A).
Gary
Dear Tom, I’ve always been scared stiff of nuclear weapons and joined CND as a consequence. But trying to imagine what it must be like to make a decision like you and your colleagues have just had to make would scare me even more. The future is yours and your generation, manage it wisely.
You’re a sad man today Tom.
It’s £65 bn down the drain, money better spend on research and development of energy so we can avoid being blackmailed by energy rich countries in the future. That will be where the power is, not in antiquated cold-war weaponry.
I can’t believe you’ve been suckered in with this nonsense about “future threats”. Most government have been incapable of dealing with the present ones.
And IF some terrorist group does get a nuclear weapon, how exactly will the UK having Trident mean we won’t get hit? Remember how many Saudi’s were on board the 9/11 planes – yet it was Afghanistan which got bombed.
I can picture it now in the war room.
“General – Big Ben has been hit and central London has become a radioactive wasteland”.
*Rightoh – launch Trident!*
“At who sir?”
*Ah, good point… erm… hold on a mo… er, sorry I think MI5 said Bradford… or was it Birmingham… could be Algeria, no, no, something about plutonium in Niger… hold it, I had it on a piece of paper here a minute ago… forget me own head next…*
So, whatever happened to Education, Education, Education then?
Think back to when you were growing up at school….you always knew at the time (although you were scared to admit it to yourself) that the sensible adult voice that, in the face of a confrontational situation, was saying “it doesn’t matter” or “retain your dignity and do the right thing” was absolutely cock on.
Why don’t we (in the broadest sense), “take a risk”.
Act from a basis of principle for a change.
WMDs are immoral and wrong, whoever’s finger is hovering over the button. I don’t buy into the argument that “we” need to defend ourselves from our fellow human beings.
We all need to stop promoting our own individual feelings of self-importance…..each one of us is entirely insignificant as an individual…and just because we can recognise that fact doesn’t add any legitimacy to the idea that the occupants of any particular geographical area in the world has any right to destroy any other.
As Dr Jonathan Miller said on yesterday’s Front Row, “we are a ghastly species”…apparently we have killed 220 million fellow human beings since 1900. That’s WE, fellow members of the Human Race, of our bretheren….who needs earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and other natural disasters……..
What a collective bunch of idiots we are.
Isn’t amazing how the silly people have linked terrorism with Nuclear weaponry.
gary
Aye Gary – the silly people do seem to link terrorism with nuclear weaponry.
But dare I jest and say “Niger plutonium” and “Osama Bin Laden…”
Until someone – I think the husband of a CIA operative – went “er, that’s not true”…
[...] I hope Mr.Watson is an excellent chap, working hard to appropriately promote or decry the causes he thinks would best serve his constituents, but as @labete saved me from pointing out, despite establishing [...]
Greenpeace has just produced a new report, In The Firing Line, which reveals true costs of £97 billion for Trident: five times government estimates.
How can this expensive project be justified at a time of economic crisis and emerging threats to national security such as international terrorism, failed states, pandemic diseases and above all, climate change?
And does it really deliver genuine security for the UK?
The report has received the backing of many senior political and military figures, including former shadow defence secretary Michael Ancram, who wrote the report’s forward, Lib Dem shadow chancellor Vince Cable, and Lord Ramsbotham, former Adjutant-General of Defence Management.
You can read a summary of the report’s findings at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ITFLsummary
And the full report at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ITFL
Leave a Comment