The Travesty of a Trident Debate

Tony Blair has now announced what readers of this blog have known for more than a week, that we are pressing ahead with a revamped Trident nuclear missile system, at a cost of up to £20bn [the £14bn I mentioned in the original blog is just for the missiles and warheads, as "3rd Column" was quick to point out]. I dont know why the prime minister bothered making the announcement really, it was no surprise to readers of TimesOnline. But for those who missed it here it is, just as I wrote it:

The cabinet had its first sight of the White Paper produced to justify continuing with a submarine-based nuclear deterrent on Thursday ahead of its official unveiling in Parliament on Monday. Tony Blair has promised MPs a full debate on the issue sometime early next year and reportedly told last week’s cabinet meeting that he wants to launch the debate very quickly "because a decision needs to be made". It’s a good quote that isn’t it? You can actually hear him saying it, with that little bit of irritation that we just don't get it in his voice. The truth is that a decision doesn’t need to be made now at all. But whether it does or not is irrelevant, because the key decisions have already been made. So MPs from whatever side of the house can go whistle, what they say will not change a thing. Is this what passes for democracy under President Blair? I’m afraid it is and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

There are three parts to the Trident system, the 58 missiles themselves, American-owned and loaned to us each time we use them at exorbitant cost; the 192 warheads, which are at least British-made and owned; and the four British Vanguard-class submarines that fire the missile. According to the spin, it is the last part of the equation, the submarines, which make it essential to decide now.

The Prime Minister and his supporters say the procurement process is so slow and cumbersome that it is imperative that we order new submarines now. It is total codswallop. You, I and every gatepost across Britain know that the key issues here are that a) Blair sold his soul to the neo-cons and part of the deal was that Britain continued to have a nuclear deterrent, and b) he sees it as part of his legacy to leave Britain with a powerful nuclear deterrent – evidence that the old nuke-hating Labour is no more.

As for the submarines, well if you start from the prime minister’s position that we do need a nuclear deterrent – many won’t but let’s humour Blair for the moment and he did after all get voted in on that basis – the submarines are a relatively easy decision. He is right at least that a submarine-based system remains by far the best option simply because it is much more difficult for a potential target to take pre-emptive action. He hasn’t of course expressed this preference because the issue is “still to be debated”. But we and the gateposts know the decision has already been made.

The Submarines

We currently have four Vanguard nuclear missile submarines. We in fact need only three. They are due to go out of service between 2017 and 2024. The British submarine building yard at Barrow has plenty of work on its plate building the Astute-class attack submarine, at present the MoD is committed to three Astute-class submarines and negotiating heavily on the remaining four of what will be a seven-boat fleet.

The seven Astutes will take Barrow up to around 2017 before it can get down to actually building whatever replacement nuclear missile submarine we want to use to fire the missile. So the life of the Vanguards will need to be extended slightly but that is not a major issue. Once Barrow has finished building the seven Astutes, it will be able to fit in building the three new nuclear missile submarines before starting all over again on a new attack submarine to replace the Astute. That will give the Royal Navy a total of just ten submarines and building them will keep the British submarine industry ticking over nicely ad infinitum, doing no harm to the Labour cause in Cumbria of course.

The Missiles

If you take the view that we do need a deterrent, and many see that as essential for no other reason than that the French have one - yes the debate does get as silly as that - then the missiles are even less of a no-brainer than the submarines. The Trident D5 missiles were due to go out of service in 2019 but the Americans, who own the things anyway, are extending the life of their missiles so we can just earn some more browny points in Washington by piggy-backing on that project. This is ideal because Blair can say we haven’t changed a thing, we are continuing with Trident, so nothing we are doing contravenes the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Er, up to a point. But only because we haven’t come to the key issue yet.

The Warheads

The British warheads are critical to the debate. They’re the one issue where MPs – and come to that the rest of us - might just be able to have an input. I’m frankly not putting any money on it but it is the faintest of possibilities, which is more than can be said for the submarines and the missiles.

The British warhead is based on the US W76 warhead, which is known to have problems, with at least one failing to detonate properly. The reason is that it is a sophisticated two-stage warhead designed to hit specific targets like particular Soviet cities and that meant using lots of clever materials that get much less clever as time goes on. They deteriorate with age and we can’t test them to make sure they are still working because of the nuclear test ban.

The response in America has been the development of the reliable replacement warhead. This is a weapon that ignores the clever bits of the old Cold War warheads that deteriorate quickly and – based on the results of previous nuclear tests going right back to the 1940s – uses the old well-proven reliable components that never deteriorate, the bits we know will work. We don’t need sophisticated bombs that will do clever things, we just need bombs that will go bang when we want them to.

Des Browne, defence secretary, has denied that we’re interested in the reliable replacement warhead. But senior defence officials let the cat out of the bag earlier this year by pointing out that we were further ahead in research into the new type of warhead than the Americans, who have been conducting an 18-month programme to design one.

That programme began in May 2005, shortly after Blair was re-elected on a mandate to continue with the nuclear deterrent, and is due to have finished this month, shortly before the British White Paper is published. Is the timing coincidental? I doubt it. The government has poured around £3.5bn into a top secret programme at Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Research Establishment to help Britain’s nuclear scientists either redesign the current warhead or design a new one.

The problem with the reliable replacement warhead is that, even if you take the current warhead apart and rebuild it using the reliable bits, it is a new warhead, and a new warhead will breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We are in a Catch-22 situation. We can’t be sure our old warhead will work without testing it and breaching the nuclear test ban and we can’t replace it with something reliable without breaching the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The warhead is the weak link. It is the one point at which Blair’s determination to spend around £14bn on a weapon we don’t actually need might falter. That’s where his opponents need to focus their fire. It’s the only place they have a chance of stopping him.

Comments

[The 3rd Column]

Hi Mick,

I think the figure of £12 billion is probably the cost of the Trident weapon system. I suspect the submarines have to be added and the cost of putting the infrastructure in place on land. I think we can probably treble the figure.

My solution would be a less capable deterrent hidden by flexibility rather than stealth - i.e., put nuclear heads on other weapons such as Tomahawk so that we can fire from a huge range of platforms: ALL submarines, surface ships, ashore. Almost impossible to hit all our weapon systems and so the deterrence stays in place.

We do not need 16 missiles with 12 warheads each in today's world. that may have been necessary for the Cold War, but the threat today is much simpler. It will be one or two weapons fired by them, and so one or two are required to retaliate.

Also one has to look at the circumstances when one would fire back. If a terrorist nuclear bomb arrives in the UK which country will we target, which city will we annihilate? If Iran or N Korea targets the UK then the answer is more obvious, but even then I am not sure we would retaliate. What would we win? Revenge certainly, but not peace and prosperity. If they hit London we loose several million people. Retaliation will escalate into a world war. I am sure other nations will try to stop retaliation.

That said I feel the UK is a target as a friend of the US and our own deterrent is necessary. I do not think the US will retaliate for us. If we decide to reply do we need a nuclear submarine hidden deterrent to reply or will a simpler system do?

On balance I am not at all sure we need the submarine deterrent but I think we do need the nuclear option to deter.

[Chuck Unsworth]

3rd Column has made several excellent points here. It's as well to remind ourselves that the costs so far bandied about by 'informed' sources are only part of the story.

Mick has very clearly set out the critical interdependence of the component parts of the UK's nuclear 'retaliation' systems. It's not just the warheads but also the entire delivery, deployment and maintenance structure which must be considered. Adding those into the equation paints a very different fiscal outlook. Nonetheless, Gordon Brown has already declared his support for 'upgrading' the system. Still, Brown has always been profligate with our cash, despite routine protestations as to his 'prudence'.

The nub of the debate is whether such an upgrade is truly necessary. That is strategically doubtful. Given a reliable warhead and decent delivery system, MAD is guaranteed - albeit on a limited basis. In any nuclear confrontation how many warheads will be detonated?

If this weaponry is for tactical or battlefield deployment, speed of delivery becomes less relevant than accuracy of targeting. Given that most potential theatres of war are within range of air or sea launched cruise missiles, the 'cheap' option is perfectly viable.

It is clearly a nonsense to expect to use our own nuclear devices against 'terrorists'. How does one target such people without the potential of vast collateral damage?

So why does Blair want to spend all this (our) cash? Maybe it's more to do with industry and commerce than national security. Then again, perhaps that is the reason for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In which case Mr Blair, where's the payoff, who gains?

[john gregory Flinn]

"The British warhead is based on the US W76 warhead, which is known to have problems, with at least one failing to detonate properly."

A very interesting weblog revealing many points I had wondered about.
'Don't fix it if it ain't broke' - is the sort of maxim I subcribe to.
However it seems these warheads are broke!
From what you say I suspect they are no longer reliable at all, and that is the real reason for renewing the system.
It could be the triggers that have deteriorated beyond reliable functionality, but I hasten to add I'm not privy to any secret information.
However these are usually made from Polonium which produces a surge of neutrons necessary to trigger fission in the warhead and detonation. However the half-life of polonium is only 140 days or so, and after 10 years there can't be much left, and with a renewal necessary - probably not enough left to do the job!

It seems we might not have a viable nuclear deterrent at all soon.

[Ian Turner]

Democracy? What democracy?

'bout time we had mid-term elections here in the home of modern democracy? 'New' Labour will leave a legacy alright! The death of democracy!

Let's just hope there's still some money left in the bank account when they finally get chucked out in 3 years time.

Ian Turner
Aberdeen

[Peter Hartley, Defence & Technology Consultant]

Mike Smith has made several excellent points about President Blair's attitude to Parliament and the British people whose interests he is supposed looking out for.

Furthermore, from a layman's viewpoint, his comments about "timing" are completely understandable. However ...

... there may well be (Classified) issues about the entire system with which he is not familiar. Regrettably, bound as I am by rules that I signed up to in 1968, I cannot disclose whether there are, or are not, any such issues. You must draw your own conclusions.

However, when I observe former senior members of HM Forces attracting publicity and gaining personal 'credos' by 'spouting off' with either erroneous data or (worse still) accurate information whilst we are engaged in military activities, I despair. Hence this e-mail.

By all means, criticise the elected Parliament and the Government for 'riding roughshod' over Democracy: and please, do not spare the Civil Service, who retreat behind Committees and Procedure. However, please be careful when discussing Technical Issues relating to Defence matters (unless you intend to mislead 'enemies of the Crown'), as your remarks, well-intentioned as they may be, run close to infringing the Security of the Realm.

Peter Hartley,
Defence & Technology Consultant

[The 3rd Column]

Mr Hartley,

"Technical Issues relating to Defence matters" are discussed virtually on every defence related sites on the net so let's not get too excited, shall we?

You only have to click on naval technology dot com, which is for free as opposed to Jane's, to obtain more or the latest technical lowdown on Trident, Vanguard, etc than what Mick Smith has published in this weblog.

[The 3rd Column]

By the way, Mick, Mr Hartley's statement as it stands puts him in the league of those anonymous people who want to take away our liberty for reasons of "state security".

That is what Stalin was so good at. Tell him to come out into the open or to say something real. Hiding behind the official secrets act is not an open discussion.

It is up to the extremely effective security services and police to ensure that debate remains on the right level.

[Mick says: I think you're being a bit tough on him there, but what do you mean "it is up to the security services and police to ensure the debate remains on the right level"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but that sounds like even less freedom of speech to me! ]

[Chuck Unsworth]

Personally I'd find it difficult to justify using the services of a 'Defence and Technology Consultant' with apparently such a loose grasp of the widespread availability of infinitely more sensitive material than that being discussed here.

This debate is about a political decision. Much detail will be evident in the White Paper and, as 3rd Column has already indicated, there is much more to be had elsewhere - including within official publications to Parliament.

So I think we need lose very little sleep over the 'security' concerns. Much more worrying is the (lack of) proper strategic consideration of potential threats. The invasion of Iraq and the current fiasco in Afghanistan being first class examples of political and strategic incompetence.

I would go further. The senior military both in Washington and London have failed disastrously to implant the military realities in the minds of their political masters. That is a measure of their limited ability and minimal integrity. It's all very well for senior Generals to proffer gung-ho responses, but their job is also to ensure that the politicians fully understand all of the potentials for disaster. I doubt that has happened, otherwise we might have (should have!)seen a few resignations prior to both campaigns.

It's notable that only after Dannatt had 'spouted off' that some of the senior military publicly proffered their concerns. And at that point there was immediate political response. Of course it's doubtful whether the response will in truth amount to anything, but that is perhaps a different side to this particular coin.

[Tucker]

As an American, I just wanted to say in response to 3rd Column's first comment, that "DON'T" count on the USA "NOT" repsonding to any Nuclear attack on, or against Britain.

I can tell you, with assurity, that there isn't any American, whether civilian, government position, or military, who would sit back, and turn their heads away from our British relations, in the event any part of Britain is ever attacked with a nuclear weapon.

You best believe, that we creedy, God awful Yanks will retailiate 100 fold in defence of your nation.

Britain is as impotant to America, as is our own nation to us. Never think that for one momment, the American people have forgotten who settled this land, and from whom the majority of our heritage comes from. Everything that goes on in Britian has always been of utmost importance to we American's. We love you people, always have. Why the British mean more to us than you'll ever know.

I don't say this as one person, but the majority of folks I know & speak to, feel the same as myself.

I'm 60 now, so I grew up in the cold war era, plus many of my family members were in either WWI or WWII. All said the same, "Britain is our blood, and our closest friend and ally", "So we help defend her 100%" "Always"!!

We may not have liked King George III, and his odd ways. "BUT".... We always, through all of our short history, loved our English, Irish, Welsh, and Scottish realations.

Also, don't forget, that many American's, still have family, who reside in parts of Britain.

America, always stated & still states, that No enemy will be allowed to attack Britain, without America coming to her side to help her.

To we on this side of the pond, Great Britain, is still "GREAT"!! And, always will be. We see so much of ourselves in the British people.

[Mick says: Thanks for that heartwarming comment, Tucker.]

[Chuck Unsworth]

Yes, it's certainly very fair to say that many Americans view us as Tucker does. My concern is that there is a real discrepancy between what my American friends (and I have a few) feel, and what I believe the current Administration would actually do, given the onset of a nuclear attack by an identifiable foe on Britain.

The raison d'etre of NATO and of the BAOR was, at least in part, to provide a line of defence for Europe and also for America. At that time America correctly felt that it would be better to fight its enemies on territory other than the Homeland itself. The same view was held in Britain, where Eastern Europe was regarded as the preferable cockpit of war. With the development of ICBMs and submarine-launched nuclear devices that rationale was largely undermined.

There's much less clarity about a 'nuclear threat' now than ever before. Given that many nations are nuclear capable (or at least very soon will be) and given that there are nebulous organisations such as Fatah, Al Qaeda, etc, it is now almost impossible to retaliate in a like manner. (The old concept of Mutally Assured Destruction). Thus the function and deployment of Trident is increasingly irrelevant.

But the reality is that we are now being leveraged into paying billions of pounds for a (new) weapons system of questionable strategic value. Again, one has to ask Why?

[Mick says: Hmm, "leveraged"? I think you've got too many American friends Chuck ;~) What does that word actually mean anyway? Here it means forced I would guess but I have seen it used so often and still dont know what it means.]

[Chuck Unsworth]

Mick, yes that's entirely fair comment. Comes of spending too much time talking to City people. Jargon is seductive.

But what I'm trying to say is that there is a very high level of risk here. There's potential for exponential growth in cost (i.e. losses to the taxpayer) which may - or may not - lead to an effective 'defence' system. So the risks are high although the 'returns' are potentially great. Additionally it's quite clear that the Government is determined to go ahead - despite the protestations about there being 'consultations' or a 'debate'.

So, it depends entirely on how well the project would be managed. And we've all seen repeated and catastrophic management failures in most Government controlled ventures. What chance would there be of this project being completed on time and to the initial budget?

As to having American friends, well one can never have too many of them!

[The 3rd Column]

Re: [Mick says: I think you're being a bit tough on him there, but what do you mean "it is up to the security services and police to ensure the debate remains on the right level"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but that sounds like even less freedom of speech to me! ]

Not at all Mick. We have a perfectly good system today in my eyes. It allows for freedom of expression, both verbal, written and in print. We have reasonable rules for control of defence sensitive data, set by the government and policed through government security services. I am sure those directly involved in media matters can see where there are strengths and weaknesses and could propose changes. I am also sure there are those who think these rules are too strict as well as those who think they are too lenient.

I judge them on how they affect my life and as far as I am concerned they meet my needs and support a lifestyle and security level in the country with which I am content.

I do not appreciate being told by anonymous people that I cannot express my thoughts because of "national security", this seems to hit at my right of free expression. If this is a real problem let them make the authorities aware and let the authorities take action. If they disagree with my comment for another reason then let them argue their case.

Hope that makes it more acceptable to you!

[john gregory Flinn]

Mr Hartley's suprising post is certainly food for thought; but maybe not the kind of thinking which he expects.

If I were a cynic and/or in the Consulting Business and wanted to be unkind, I might be inclined to describe his intervention as an attempt to stigmatise, discredit or, at least limit the competition!

By the way, who are the "enemies of the Crown", these days?
Perhaps those 1.6 million potential suicide bombers whom Mr Bari of the MCB believes he can mobilise fit the bill? Their acolytes and sympathisers also. Or maybe Al-Qaeda...?
Trident submarines are hardly a deterrent for their kind of asymmetric warfare.

I think the real “enemies of the Crown” are elsewhere.

[Zen]

There can be only a very poor debate, if one does not understand war. There can be no requirement for a Deterrent if one has abandoned one's state the whim of another or has subsumed it into a larger state.
In both cases one has accepted that one maybe sacrificed by them, and that one has little leaverage to alter their course.

Once you accept that the UK has a right to exist as a state, you must inevitably accept that it has a future and act to guard that future.

A Deterrent system, is the ultimate guarentee in technilogical and military terms to this date. Of that for a state of our size a SSBN/SLBM system using nuclear warheads is the most effective and efficient.

[Paul]

If we can not fire our "independent" nuclear deterrent without the American's approval (due their storage of the missiles and US satellite control of launch instructions) of an act in the American interest, then let the Americans spend their own money on their own weapon in their own interest and lets stop subsidizing their interests.

[Phil]

Independent means independent. As for who would we strike back at if attacked....I think it was President Chirac who pointed out that certain countries in the ME would have many smoking holes where there used to be cities if France was attacked, regardless. This is what worries certain other countries in the region.
And by-the-way, what makes everybody think that every thing is hunky-dory with Russia & China.

[Bill Bird]

Cheers to Tucker & Uncle Sam.

For the same money as one sub & warheads, we could get?:

Spies
Customs Men
Immigration Officials
Home Security Specialists
Extra SAS Company
Diplomats by the lorryload
Engineer Battalion
Medical Battalion
Supply Battalion

- we could use these?

One Nuclear warhead into your capital is a pretty good deterrent to most nations.

Nukes are kind of like insurance - we haven't claimed in the last 50 years - why not reduce the cover a little?

[mikeO]

We need both a long term replecement and an upgrade and extra delivery systems.
1/Upgrade the 4 subs and increase the number of warheads or increase yeald.
2/ Install Cruise missiles with nuclear w/h on Navy Surface ships.
3/ Buy Israeli popeye missiles to give the new Typhoon Fighter nuclear strike capability.

This should give the clear message that the UK can utterly destroy any nation that uses WMDs against British Interests or any country that dares to even think about transferring WMDs to Terrorist Groups.
We must not let our vital ballance of terror go to North Korea, Iran or even worse, Al-Qa'ida.

[Ted]

Lots of talk here, but nothing really on what should be the main discussion: the immorality of the government's plans. The UK is suppoed to be dismantling all of its nuclear arsenal under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. By not doing so, it is taking an immoral course. Pope John Paul II defined this to be the case in 1982. Today not one of the signatories are following through on the treaty. This makes proliferation more likely and the presence of such weapons highly dangerous. Blair's decision runs contrary to the well being of humanity and we may well end up paying a heavy price for his disrespect (yet again) for international law.

[Tim Webb]

Perhaps those who like Tony Blair who talk of Trident being the 'ultimate insurance policy' should be reminded that insurance is compensatory, not preventative. The premium of £20billion and counting is a high price to pay for a weapons system with no discernible use.

[Oliver (and others)]

In The Times' invitation to comment it says:
"Comments will be moderated"
Question: By whom, for what?"
It also says they will not appear until 'the author' has approved them
Question: The author of the blog or the author of the comment?
Answers please: in this column so that we can find them

[Mick says: They are moderated by me and the only reason I would censor them or reject them was offensiveness, ie foul language, racism or personal attacks on other people - not criticism of what others say which is allowed, even encouraged - just personal attacks, which are definitely not allowed. Every view is allowed on this blog. Treat everyone else as being as entitled to their view as you are and you will get on fine Oliver. ]

[Chuck Unsworth]

We should all understand that blogs are not democratic forums (fora, maybe?). They are all personally owned and controlled. Sometimes this control is good, sometimes not.

I've always been surprised at Mick's tolerance of comment which sometimes has bordered on the libellous. Certainly in some cases contributors have descended to personal abuse which is entirely unwarranted and unproductive.

I'm in favour of robust debate, but there is a limit to what might be acceptable. Generally I think that standard of dialogue in this particular blog has been very high. Thus it has been of great service to all. Long may that continue.

[Otto Barnes]

MY view:

It appears to me that the Trident salespeople have not studied the theory of games and economic behaviour recently [1944]! They tri but they Don't get it. The M.A.D part. Nuclear Assured Destruction! huh?

Arms industry is big business. And how can you peddle an arms race when your the only runner? Who published the Naturwissenschaften, Foley? Does the info on a nuclear threat come from the same muppets who [planted] info about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And all the muppets who printed that garbage?

I don't trust US/UK government to give me the correct time! since this last 5 years.
never mind an informed view upon the need for a 20 '000'000'000 Quid Atomic bomb business deal. They're all crazy, and we're crazy for letting em get away with it!

Tridont -- [see Nagasaki]

"Defence was an afterthought, prompted by necessity; and its introduction as a State function, though effected doubtless with a view to the strengthening of the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the State's destruction. - Benjamin Tucker [1854 – 1939]

[Mick says: Interesting view but it was not Foley who published Naturwissenschaft - and you are obviously refering to the details that the atom had been split - that was Paul Rosbaud who also passed it to MI6 via Foley]

[Andrew James]

Wasn’t the whole issue decided long before the white paper and the public announcement? Nuclear decision making in this country has never been open or consultative--rarely is the majority of the cabinet involved or even informed. The civil service in the MoD and Foreign Office has decided to keep Trident and we are keeping it.

The American navy’s Graduate School has a new article on the Trident decision and they seem to present it as a done deal. "Future of the British Nuclear Deterrent: An Assessment of Decision Factors" http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2007/Jan/ladwigJan07.asp

From reading this account, it seems clear that Blair’s actions are consistent with previous PMs and that the vote in the commons is little more than a rubber stamp.