- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Trident 'less effective' after Cold War
10 October 2012
Speaking at a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament fringe event during the Conservative Party Conference, MP James Arbuthnot said that conventional defence spending should not have been reduced while nuclear spending was maintained.
"Nuclear weapons became less effective and that meant that we should have increased defence spending to compensate for the lack of their effectiveness," he said. "Instead, we took the peace dividend and reduced our defence spending, thereby adding to the instability of the world."
Despite describing nuclear weapons as "the greatest danger that the world faces", Arbuthnot said the argument that Trident secured world peace "used to be true".
"At the end of the Cold War the world became much more fractured and less structured and therefore less stable," he said. "That meant that we should have considered defence to be a priority for our spending and we should have increased our defence spending to cope with that decrease in stability."
Future nuclear threats would not necessarily be as traceable as the missile-based attacks feared during the Cold War, he said.
"We think of defending ourselves against a ballistic missile attack," he said. "I think that is dreadfully outdated thinking.
"Why would anyone launch a weapon by possibly the most difficult way of committing a weapon when actually it would be far easier to put a nuclear bomb into a container and sail it into Southampton or Tilbury. And then if Southampton blows up, against whom do we launch our Trident missiles? It would be really quite difficult to work out."
Arbuthnot added that despite these arguments, he voted in favour of Trident renewal in Parliament and "would do it again today".
"Despite all this fracturing of the world, still Russia and China remain belligerent and a threat," he said. "Still, in my opinion, they are deterred by the uncertainty of Britain having its own separate nuclear deterrent from the United States.
"Iran and North Korea are flexing their muscles. I believe they would respond to unilateral disarmament by the United Kingdom with a feeling not of respect but of contempt, because I believe they respect real power. Which I think they think we have because we have nuclear weapons.
"Now would be a funny old time to go unilateralist, but I really do support President Obama in the hope that we can eventually see a nuclear-free world," he said. "We will have to resolve the issues of the Middle East wars, the tension between Pakistan and India - all sorts of other concerns will need to be resolved before we get there. But that is the hope."
A Cabinet Office review into possible alternatives to the continuous at-sea deterrence (CASD) provided by Trident is unlikely to produce "viable" arguments against CASD, he added.
He also said that the Conservative Party generally "doesn't think very much about this issue" which was "cut and dried" in the minds of many members.
HAVE YOUR SAY
11 October 2012
The MP hits the nail on the head. In the worst case scenario, I doubt even the most irrational leader in the West would be able to launch more than one ICBM/SLBM (the latter containing MIRVs) or an aerial nuclear strike. Keeping four subs for the case of the UK is a super duper overkill. Given the claim of austerity (ugly word and silly word), it would have been far more practical to cut the nuclear deterrent rather than to kill and aircraft carrier. Don't blame DFID or other departments.
Jiesheng - Singapore
11 October 2012
Jiesheng - Singapore
Sort of agree with you, CASD is probably overkill and James Arbuthnot makes sense when he talks about possible attack situations (obviously he has seen the film Sum of All Fears). However with rogue states out there trying to obtain Nuclear weapons I still think there is a requirement for the UK to retain a Nuclear capablity.
Rob - Telford
11 October 2012
You both seem to have read the headline but missed most of his arguments. He says Russia and China are still a threat (they are both building subs. and new ICBMs), would vote for Trident tomorrow and that unilateral disarmament would be met with contempt. The container bomb threat is IN ADDITION to the existing threats. It's the so-called "peace dividend" that was the mistake - and he is also wrong to say that nuclear spending was maintained: we have fewer missiles and far fewer warheads and only 1 delivery system. We don't even have parity with the French. I have to disagree with an argument for disarmament here while Dfid funds schemes in India!
Chris - London
11 October 2012
Would a hybrid ssbn/ssgn be possible where the sub had fewer nuclear missiles on board but had cruise missiles multi packed into the remaining launch tubes? Sort of give it a multi role. Even if used to fire cruise no-one would know where it was as SSN's fire cruise so deterent still safe.
Just thought I would ask what might seem a rather simple question to the issue involved
JC - UK
11 October 2012
JC - UK,
Your post is just the reason why cruise should not be nuclear enabled,and that an adversary knows that is the case.
If you have nuclear cruise and get into a shooting war,how does the other side know if you are attacking with a nuclear or non nuclear weapon,and what would be their reaction.
Whereas if we use only conventional cruise they are in no doubt that we are not carrying out a nuclear strike.
On the other hand if they detect a ICBM heading their way,they certainly know what to expect and no confusion arises. Not that it would matter in the latter case.
michael - notts
11 October 2012
Chris - London
That's what happens when you try and comment at work, you get cur short when the boss heads your way. I didn't get chance to argue against the Dfid and other departments, I would really try and make economies in other departments and as I stated I would keep Trident or its replacement, I would look at the funding of CASD, if it continues to come out of the defence budget then is it a luxury we could do without, why not have a vessel ready to deploy . . .
I have to agree with other contributors (Graham - High Wycombe) in that the move to fund this from the defence budget rather than the original treasury budget was a big mistake and is having a negative effect on our conventional forces, something has to give.
If China or Russia (as per your post) play up, then the high readiness boat puts to sea . . .
Rob - Telford
11 October 2012
Michael - Notts
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply nuclear cruise, I was just trying to sound out possibility of actually finding a useful role in this time of money shortage for subs that just carry one type of weapon that should never be used.
I understand that we only have non nuclear cruise missiles and I wouldn't want that to change, my previous post wasn't clear on that sorry.
JC - UK
12 October 2012
The idea that China is a "threat" to the UK, still less that it has any motivation for launching a nuclear attack against a small group of islands on the far side of the world, is sheer fantasy. Similarly, North Korea is no concern of ours whatsoever, nor we of theirs. Nor is Iran, unless we choose to hold Uncle Sam's coat while he picks a fight with them at the behest of the Israelis, who want no rival to their regional dominance. As for the Russians, plenty of countries that are potentially far more directly threatened by Russia than we are don't seem to feel the need for an "independent" (sic) nuclear deterrent. Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Norway, for example. Could it be because they don't have the baggage of a lost empire and don't feel the compulsion to cling on to outward symbols of a status in the world that they lost 70 years ago?
I suspect that James Arbuthnot really voted in favour of renewing Trident because that was what the Conservative whips and the Conservative voters in his constituency expected him to do, and it was the best thing for his career.
Stan - York
12 October 2012
The argument that we will not know whether cruise is conventional or Nuclear is really not very compelling.
Are we trying to say a differrence exists between that and the launch of a surveillance satellite during wartime.
It will happen very often as tensions mount. Indeed damaged satellites and equipments will need to be replaced frequently, more satellites will be required due to increased surveillance. Therefore the enenmy will continually be left wondering, is that a Ballistic Missile launch or a Satellite/Comms vehicle.
Most countries abide by the "Red Phone". I really think we can expect to still have diplomacy working in some form even during the most violent times.
Degradable - UK
12 October 2012
Stan - York,
China is flexing its newly found financial and military muscle in its Pacific sphere of influence,that is a fact.
The small group of islands on the other side of the world,still has obligations to its Commonwealth partners in that part of the world,if God forbid anything should hit the fan we would of necessity go to their assistance,much as they assisted us during two world wars.
This would then put us very much in Chinese sites,not fantasy.
North Korea,is an unstable state to say the least,I would think it is everyones concern to keep a very watchfull eye on them.Yes and likewise Iran.
Perhaps if you lived in Israel,and had to put up with the statements emanating from it's enemies.you may have a different outlook. 'Israel is a cancer in the middle east' 'Israel will be wiped off the map of the world' are just examples coming out of Iran.
Germany and Norway did not have nuclear weapons even at the height of the cold war,so your arguement there is not relevant.
Poland and the Baltic states being in the geographical position they are,would be tempting fate if they even suggested acquiring nuclear weapons.
Nuclear deterent has kept the peace for the last sixty years,or have you forgotten that.
Never mind Arbuthnot,every major political party agrees that we should have some form of nuclear deterent,the discussion is of what kind it should be,not if we should have it.
michael - notts
12 October 2012
A nuclear free world would be at the mercy of the first dictator/nutcase with 50 or so crude Hiroshima bombs? Is that what he wants.
This bomb in a container arguement. Any bomb that explodes will leave a fingerprint, that gives you a pretty good idea where it came from. Why do you think the UK sent a VC10 with a sniffer pod just after the N Korean test?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK