A report on Trident, the UK’s nuclear deterrent, one of the most testing issues facing the coalition government, and indeed the UK, was released today, but it seems it will make little or no difference to policy.The current fleet of four Vanguard submarines, each more than double the length of a Boeing 747, are set to be decommissioned at some point during the 2020s.
However, in the modern age of austerity and coalition politics simply building a like-for-like replacement at a cost of £15-£20 billion (although Greenpeace claim the final cost will be at least £34billion) is not so easy, especially when the Liberal Democrats are openly against the policy.
Almost immediately after the report was published Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond said it would be “naïve or reckless” not to upgrade Trident with a similar system.
This is hardly surprising considering the Conservative party are major advocates of upgrading the current Vanguards with new submarines.
The main findings of the report are a) there are alternatives to Trident b) a continuous at-sea presence is the most “resilient” and efficient posture c) A new missile system would be more expensive and d) The submarines could operate at “reduced readiness” when threat levels are lower.
Another slight deviation, supported by, among others, Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, is having three new submarines rather than four and ending 24-hour patrols when they are not needed, but even this would only save £4 billion, which when you consider the entire cost is not really scrimping and saving.
However, a major issue which seems to be constantly overlooked is the fact the world Trident was designed for does not exist.
In 1968 the first patrol of the UK’s nuclear deterrent was launched, at the time it was called Polaris. In 1980 it was decided to upgrade it with the US-built Trident system, which worked on similar technical lines.
The basic idea was submarines equipped with nuclear missiles would be on constant patrol and, should the need arise, be able to launch nuclear weapons from below the water’s surface and be able to hit almost anywhere in the world.
The submarines were protected and virtually undetectable and offered a guaranteed second strike capability if the UK ever came under attack. When Polaris was launched and the construction of Trident began the main threat was from the Soviet Union and both of these systems offered very good protection against a European based missile strike.
The fear at this time was the Kremlin, or anther hostile communist country, launching aeroplane or cruise missile based warheads, most likely at the US. But in the modern world this is not the threat we face anymore.
Yes, there are still hostile, or potentially hostile, governments with Iran and North Korea being the obvious two, but logic dictates the threat we face now is not from these sources, but from extremists who have bought so-called dirty bombs on the black market.
Today the greatest threat of nuclear attack is not a politician with a finger on a red button, but a religious extremist with a suitcase bomb planning to blow-up Time Square, or a Hezbollah martyr walking a cart full of uranium into downtown Tel Aviv.
This sort of attack will not and cannot be prevented by a system like Trident or any other conventional nuclear deterrent.
There are certainly still traditional threats on the nuclear stage, but none of them are likely to be aimed at the UK.
Iran, for example, would almost certainly target Israel, while North Korea is more likely to take aim at Japan or the western sea-board of the United States (although knowing the North Koreans the most likely event will be them claiming to have destroyed Washington when in fact the missile blew-up on the launch pad).
Although it might be a little leap of faith, it is hard to imagine there is a national leader unstable enough to launch such an attack, particularly when you consider any first strike will result in the nation’s obliteration by the American nuclear arsenal.
If you find this leap a step to far for you then you only need remember neither Polaris or Trident has never been used for its intended purpose, and both were launched at a time of major political unrest when the world was seemingly on the verge of nuclear war.
If the world is genuinely concerned by these threats then a more suitable system would be an international nuclear deterrent and better military coordination, but getting countries to agree to this would make globally agreed targets on carbon reduction seem like child’s play.
Not for one second would any sensible person suggest there should be no protection against a nuclear attack on the UK, but at the same time it is irresponsible to put all our faith in a system designed for a different kind of war.
The best form of nuclear deterrent is active non-proliferation, tighter controls on the black market and better screening a border crossing, all of which would cost less and be a lot more effective than a multi-billion pound submarine fleet.
Yes, it is hard to predict what threats this nation will face in the future, had we known what direction the world would take in the last decade Trident would probably never have been built, but, as with so many essentially political issues, what the public want is effective action, not a badly thought-out display of warmongering bravado.
Unfortunately, the reason for this misguided lack-of-action is politicians of all parties want to appear tough on defence and there are few ways to appear tougher than by approving the construction of four 150-metre-long submarines.
Phallic imagery aside, all we can do is wait until 2016 when
the final decision is set to be made, although it probably won’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment