One year – two votes
In March Westminster MPs will vote on the White Paper, “The Future of the United Kingdom Nuclear Deterrent”. Two months later the Scottish people will decide who will represent them in Holyrood. A YouGov poll in November found that 61% of Scots want the Scottish Parliament to be able to get rid of Trident. Only 25% didn’t want it to have this power.
Why decide now ?
The White Paper claims that the existing Trident submarines will have to be replaced in 2024 and it will take 17 years to design and build a replacement. But the Navy could run the existing submarines for longer, and build a replacement quicker. The real reason the decision is set for March is because Tony Blair wants a clear decision before he steps down.
What would it mean for Scotland ?
Tony Blair’s legacy would be nuclear weapons based on the Clyde for the next 50 years. Throughout this time there would be one submarine on patrol at sea, armed with nuclear missiles.
What would they build ?
- Four new submarines. The first would be operational in 2024. The White Paper raises the prospect of building only three, but this is unlikely because they need four to keep one on patrol.
- Trident missiles would initially be renewed. In the 2030s they would be replaced by a new design of American missile. The submarines would have to be modified.
- The nuclear warheads will be replaced with a new design in the 2020s. The White Paper suggests that they might just overhaul the warheads instead. This is unlikely because the warheads would have to last another 30 years.
What will it all cost ?
The annual cost of nuclear weapons in recent years has been between £1 billion and £2 billion. So it will cost between £50 billion and £100 billion to keep them from 2007 until 2055. The White Paper is deliberately vague, but the total is likely to be nearer to £100 billion.
Why keep the bomb ?
The White Paper says that Britain needs nuclear weapons as an insurance policy in an uncertain world. Every nation in the world could use the same argument. The logical conclusion is that everyone should have the bomb. This is an insurance policy that makes it more likely that something will go wrong.
Can Britain legally keep the bomb forever ?
In 1970 the Non Proliferation Treaty came into force. The Treaty is a bargain. Nations that did not have nuclear weapons promised they would not develop them. In exchange five nuclear weapons states, including Britain, all promised they would negotiate in good faith to achieve disarmament. Replacing Trident will send a signal to the rest of the world that we have no intention of keeping our side of the bargain – so why should they keep theirs ? We would be encouraging them to follow our example and build the bomb.
The Special Relationship
Trident is an American missile system. Its replacement would also come from the US. The White Paper acknowledges that there are US components inside the nuclear warheads. The targeting system relies on American software. The US Navy can work out where our submarines are, and they will have advanced warning before any missiles are fired. It is inconceivable that Britain could ever launch a nuclear strike if Washington said no. Trident could only be used as part of a US nuclear strike.
What about the jobs ?
The civilian workforce at Faslane is smaller than it used to be, and Trident is only one part of the work they do. Trident could be scrapped without closing Faslane. Trident has resulted in far fewer jobs in Scotland than was promised in the 1980s. Most of the civilian job are in England - at Aldermaston, Devonport and Barrow. Many of the workers have skills which are in high demand. The Government should be planning how to redeploy this workforce.
Will the number of warheads be reduced ?
The White Paper says there will be a 20% reduction in the number of “operationally available” warheads. But it does not mention any reduction in the number of warheads actually deployed at sea. There will still be up to 48 nuclear warheads on each of three armed submarines. The reduction will probably be implemented by scrapping extra warheads that are kept as a reserve.
What would happen if Trident was launched ?
The likely civilian casualties from detonating one Trident warhead on a military target close to a town could be between 30,000 and 80,000. Detonating the same warhead in a large urban area could result in 200,000 deaths. Detonating all of the 48 warheads carried on one submarine at likely targets in the Moscow area could result in around 3 million deaths. Targeting all the 144 warheads deployed on three submarines at separate large urban areas could result in around 30 milliion deaths. These figures do not include long term casualties.
Will future nuclear weapons be more useable ?
The White Paper acknowledges that a lower-yield variant of Trident is currently available. The US is designing more accurate nuclear weapons with a lower-yield. These weapons are seen as being more “useable”. The Pentagon would feel less constraint about using such weapons than larger bombs. The missiles that Britain deploys in future will come from America and the warheads will copy American designs. So the future system is likely to be more “useable”. This trend threatens to undermine the distinction between nuclear and conventional arms.
