'It is not yet too late to stop Trident spending'

20 June 2012

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament general secretary Kate Hudson sets out why recent multi-billion pound Trident contracts have not yet set the replacement programme in stone

What kind of government commits to a billion pound contract, only to admit on the day it is announced that the next administration may have to "negotiate its way out" of the deal? That happened on Monday of this week. But before dissecting the absurdity of this British Ministry of Defence's admission, let us recap how we got here.

In a Westminster Hall debate in December 2011, Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn voiced a concern shared by many fellow parliamentarians on the implications of current spending on the United Kingdom's Trident nuclear weapons system. With a decision on whether or not to replace the system's submarines not due until 2016, he argued that the sums being spent prior to that decision threatened to pre-empt parliamentary authorisation.

He stated: "Quite simply, we are moving to an enormous expenditure before a parliamentary vote in, presumably, 2016 or whenever - when all of us might still be members of parliament or when none of us are. There will be a new parliament and a different parliament will make that decision. I could write the speech for the (defence) minister or his successor now. It will say: 'We do not want to do it and we do not like it. It is not good, but we have already spent so much money that it would be a shame to waste it.'

Those who oppose the replacement of Trident have long argued that there is a serious possibility that, come 2016, such swollen expenditure will result in a replacement being presented as a fait accompli. The MoD announcement this week of a £1.1bn contract with Rolls Royce is just the most recent manifestation of such profligate advance spending. The past year has seen announcements of £350m on design work for the next generation of nuclear-armed submarines, as well as a £2bn investment in new warhead assembly facilities, high-explosives units and research buildings at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston & Burghfield.

The recent £1.1bn contract will see a £500m refurbishment of Rolls Royce's Raynesway plant in Derby, and includes £600m for developing nuclear reactor cores to be used in powering Britain's nuclear submarines. The revamping of the Raynesway plant itself is also inextricable from, and essential to, the building of a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines. For the uninitiated, clarification is needed here. Britain has two classes of submarine - both of which are nuclear-powered. The Astute Class submarines are conventionally armed - they do not carry nuclear weapons - while the Vanguard Class carries Trident missiles with nuclear warheads.

Some of the reactor cores to be built as part of this contract will be used to power the Astute Class submarines, but the MoD has confirmed that they will also be used in the first of the potential "successor" – or replacement - submarines. Given that parliament has not voted on whether or not to build these successor submarines and will not until 2016, this kind of spending is both outrageous and unauthorised. Indeed, the MoD has itself confirmed the entirely ludicrous position it is now in.

Minister for the Armed Forces Nick Harvey stated on Monday: "The money that has been committed today is a spend over an 11 year period, so if we decide in 2016 not to go ahead with some of these engines - the government of the day would have to negotiate its way out of that. At a time when the public are being told that there isn't enough money for crucial services, it's natural that people baulk at this kind of economic irresponsibility in government." As spending escalates, commentators have quite rightly expressed concerns about the MoD's dogmatic commitment to replacing Trident.

But this week has already seen some commentators predictably claim that Trident replacement has cost us too much to cancel. The rhetoric is worrying, but the detail is inaccurate. With the manufacture of replacement submarines billed at around £25bn, and with the lifetime cost of a successor fleet amounting to well over £100bn – we are clearly not near the tipping point yet. Trident is economically untenable and deeply unpopular, with polls consistently showing majority opposition to replacing it. And £100bn is an unconscionable figure when placed alongside the slashing of public spending on schools, hospitals, libraries and other services. Current spending on Trident and its replacement is unacceptable - and it will only get worse. But we are not too late to stop it.

This article first appeared on sister site PublicServiceEurope.com.

HAVE YOUR SAY

20 June 2012

£100bn for a 30 year service life pales into comparison with the £330bn that the gov't intends to waste on overseas aid in the same period- stop that instead
Ian Skinner - Enfield

20 June 2012

I to lean more towards NOT replacing Trident.
But
I do not know of
a:) the polls that suggest majority. I know many people that are keen for us to remain a nuclear power, as it IS used every day. It can not be proven that it does not work, and it is seen by many as insurance.

b:) Much of the work outlined really is for the ongoing SSN fleet and otehr activites, indeed it would need to be done anyway.

c:) Issues of financing a project to buy / to buy & run are very vague.
We could use buying a car as an example. We have to buy the car so that cost is fixed. But to then state costs for the next 20 years is really "pie in the sky".
It really depends on usage, UK could easily move from CASD to a short notice to deploy. Technological advances could have a major impact on the project. Just two areas for thought...

No lets stick to what we do know (And what we all argue about as we do not know that answer)
Trident is a deterrent.
It is very costly in terms of replacement
Interesting comment on BBC Site ages ago puts cost in perspective)

Insurance for house £200 per year. Event of disaster hotel, family assistance, inconvenience

Trident £28 per year. Event of disaster End of Life...

Obviously you can see that the author of the comment believes Our payment for Trident will ensure no one nukes us. I am not in agreement with that fact, but it should remove the cost debate.
Therefore the department which pays for the system is one of the major sticking points. Coming out of the Defence budget with all the damage it will do to conventional forces in my opinion either increases the potential for use, but certainly reduces our flexibility.

I firmly believe other options are available that are equally effective and cheaper for our purposes. (Yes back to the Cruise debate)

I do not see how Germany/Japan and other nations exist and do not seem to worry about this issue like we do.

Arguments that we actually need to address.
Our standing in the world, (UN top 5 includes not just Nuclear but conventaional assets)
Our commitment to defend others (CommonWealth, would we Nuke if required)
Reducing Nuclear proliferation Alternatives
Degradable - UK

20 June 2012

What kind of government commits to a billion pound contract....sounds very familiar to the two aircraft carriers Labour choose to build with penalties for scrapping them.

Wish MP's would shut their mouths and actually do something constructive for once like taking time out to run the country properly instead of accusing each other of what they themselves have done in the past.

If so many people want to ditch Trident then let Labour fight the next election with a firm 100% promise it will scrap it. Only then will we get the poll that seems to suggest that so many people want rid of Trident.
JC - UK

20 June 2012

I read an article sometime ago in regards to the nuclear deterent, (one of many knocking around) but this one made a good point against the use of nuclear cruise missiles.

These missiles are in a growing number of countries arsenals,including rogue countries who aspire to nuclear ambitions.
The use of cruise against a non nuclear oponent is relatively straightforward.
The use of it against another member of the nuclear 'club' is fraught with danger.
In the case of war,you launch an ICBM and you can be sure it's going to carry a nuclear warhead so you retaliate like for like.This is the deterent that has kept us safe for the last sixty odd years.
Launch a cruise missile in the same circumstances,your enemy is left wondering are you targetting a specific installation with a non nuclear warhead,or are you upping the game.
Are they going to wait and see,or are they not going to take that chance.
Sorry but a nuclear cruise is not an option.
michael - notts

20 June 2012

michael - notts

Yep same point I have made if we go with cruise missiles

1. We cannot guarantee they will get through.
2. Range is considerably less than an ICBM
3. Lowers the nuclear threshold through possible confusion.

Cruise missiles are not an option if we are going to maintain a deterrent as an ultimate insurance against a nuclear strike then we have to go with like for like.
Graham - High Wycombe

20 June 2012

Why do we home in on the comments about Cruise.

Can I seek a reason from the learned here as to ...

Why does Germany / Holland / Denmark / Spain / Italy not need Nuclear deterrent.
Lets start there
Degradable - UK

21 June 2012

Trident is an effective detterant, the only way to maintain this is like for like replacement. Cruise missiles are not an aceptable alternative for reasons that are well documented.

This government has shown poor judgement with regards to defence in the past, however I beleive the right decision is being made with trident, we need to make these investments now to avoid a capability gap.

Defence is the first priority fof the government, the Uk independant detterant is an important asset to this country, allowing us peace of mind and worldwide influence. We dont spend enough on defence in this country.

The reason the main gate decision on trident has been delayed is so the conservative's can keep there coalition partners happy with there pointless review of alternatives which will inevitabley come uo with nothing useful.
David Forster - Durham

21 June 2012

degradable,
It's not a case of homing in on comments about cruise.
It is rather more of pointing out that cruise in a nuclear role is more of a liability than a deterrent.
michael - notts

22 June 2012

Degradable - UK

'Why does Germany / Holland / Denmark / Spain / Italy not need nuclear deterrent.'

Because they live under the nuclear umbrella of the US and NATO, they do not need them.

The UK & France started to develop nuclear weapons not long after WWII & therefore the US didn't really have a say about it-although I do believe that they were against the programmes & proliferation. Whereas the other countries would have been 'coerced' into not developing weapons by the guarantee of protection from NATO, via US warheads...

Therefore all the countries in NATO theoretically DO have nuclear weapons although not a sovereign capability such as the UK/France, so they do not worry because they can afford not to...
Laskovar - UK

23 June 2012

I love how people just quote £100bn as the cost for what they call "replacing trident". When in fact we are only replacing the submarines, which makes sense as the current ones were built in the 90's. This coupled with the astute class soon to be finished it makes sense to have the next project lined up and ready to go. That way skills and jobs are maintained which reduces overall cost of the project.

No matter the actual cost of replacing the submarines and in life time cost most of that money will be spent in the UK, creating jobs and helping the UK economy.

Though i would love to see a breakdown of the costs and how amazingly they equal the nice round figure of £100bn
mick346 - Great Britain

27 June 2012

Does CND still exist? Do they meet up in a phone box with the Communists? Why does this Hudson person get to air her untruths and fantasies on a regular basis? Of course, she wouldn't replace Trident with anything - so there's no point talking about alternatives or the meaning of the word "credible". She would have disarmed us before the Soviet Union collapsed and it would still exist now - but that's what her kind wanted. They are trying again now, with USSR Mark II - the EU.
Chris - London