As there is a vote coming up about the renewal of the Trident system, I felt it was important to write to my MP, although I anticipate he, along with the majority of MPs, will back renewal. However, regardless of the side one takes, this is a bad time to make a big decision, and I still question how much impartial research has been done into whether this is a cost-effective choice, even for those who are pro-deterrent. With a sinking pound and public finances squeezed, this is an issue which could have very real knock-on effects on our doorsteps. My letter also omitted the very real question of how a deterrent so reliant on US support can be truly independent
Here is my letter with added hyperlinks to sources:
Dear Mr
Morris,
I understand
that there will be a vote in Parliament as to whether the United Kingdom should
renew its Trident nuclear submarine fleet. Regardless of the side one takes, I
feel this debate is badly timed, taking place in the turmoil of the formation
of a new government and the aftermath of the referendum result. I strongly
believe there would be wisdom taking more time, following our nation’s recent
trauma.
However, I expect
the debate and vote will happen, so I feel I must write to you. I must state up
front that I have huge moral objections to nuclear weapons, so I'd be glad to
see the end of a UK nuclear deterrent. However, even if one doesn’t have that
over-riding moral objection, it's hard to see the justification for a new
Trident system strategically, financially or militarily. Here are my reasons:
Cost
The official cost estimates in 2010 were £15-20 billion, although many believe it will be
much higher. As there is US input, and the pound has devalued against the
dollar by around 10% since the referendum, this is bound to rise. Ongoing
operational costs and maintenance will take this total much higher.
Over my
adult lifetime, there have been many examples where it was believed that our
conventional forces on active duty were imperilled by shortages – of
ammunition, helicopters, body armour, and using vulnerable Land Rovers due to a
lack of armoured personnel carriers. The savings from abandoning Trident could
ensure that does not happen again. I’m not a pacifist, so I feel that when our
personnel are deployed it’s vital they actually have all the resources they
need, decent houses to come home to, and proper support for those injured or
traumatised, along with their families.
Military Strategy
The point is
often made that Trident is for our security – to make us safe. Is this
well-founded?
The British
nuclear deterrent was conceived to ensure the UK had the independent means to
deter the USSR during the Cold War. We couldn't hope to win a conventional war
against the USSR, so it was to ensure the UK could not be intimidated, and an
aggressor would pay for using nuclear weapons on the UK, if it ever came to
that. As I’m sure you know, the British deterrent (whether Vulcans, Polaris or
Trident) was always a 'second strike' weapon. They would be deployed once
Britain was about to be devastated by an incoming attack, or after such an
attack had done its worst. In the Cold War scenario, it was assumed the USSR
would be the aggressor, and it was very hard to imagine circumstances where
Trident would be fired in isolation from a US response, or that as a NATO ally,
they would simply watch European allies attacked. This is presumably why, apart
from France, no other European country has nuclear weapons. The difference
'our' deterrent makes to that overall scenario is more symbolic than
significant.
So at most,
Polaris and Trident would have been a kind of posthumous revenge. In his old
age, Denis Healey once admitted that back in the 60s if he had been in bunker
after a Soviet attack, he wouldn't have launched Polaris. What would the point
have been in slaughtering millions of Russians after the damage was done?
The same
surely applies now with regard to the big nuclear powers. Russia (and China)
might have too much at stake to risk such a war with the West, but don't we
need a deterrent to protect us from Iran, North Korea et al? The answer is the
same: a nuclear strike by any 'rogue state' would certainly get a US response
(possibly with support from Russia/China), so if that doesn't deter them, will
a couple of Trident submarines? Furthermore, if the UK is seeking to discourage
the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it reduces the credibility of that stance
by renewing Trident.
Terrorism
Probably the
most pressing threat to national security is terrorism. Nuclear deterrence is
no use against such a threat. We don't know where they are, and the best hope
of stopping them will be through good police and intelligence work. Many
terrorists are happy to die in their cause; indeed some actively seek it. The
Cold War peace was said to be maintained by the dangerous balance of mutually
assured destruction (MAD) between the USA and USSR. However, if one side is
happy to die, that balance is destroyed.
Conclusion
I don’t
expect you will agree with me, as I know your party seeks Trident renewal.
However, it isn’t as simple as a left/right issue. Military chiefs and even
Michael Portillo (hardly a lily-livered lefty!) have questioned spending these
huge sums of money to maintain a nuclear deterrent, when there are so many
other pressing needs on our nation (including other military requirements).
Last night I
was at a local public meeting seeking to keep Morecambe Library and 3
Childrens’ Centres open, which are threatened because of the cuts Lancashire
County Council must make. Austerity is biting very hard locally, so it’s very
hard to understand why such an expensive prestige project remains a priority.
Trident
represents a lot of money that could be used to:
a) invest in
the towns like Barrow affected by the cancellation. Employment is important,
but Trident is a very expensive way to keep people employed.
b) ensure
the conventional forces being deployed actually have all they need and decent
houses to come home to.
c) contribute
to deficit reduction, instead of closing vital local facilities.
Even the
lowest estimate of £15bn is a lot of money to spend on something you hope you
never use.
I hope you
have time to read and weigh these arguments. At the very least, I would ask you
to support deferring the decision until things settle down, I think a proper
impartial strategic review of the value of a UK deterrent would be very
helpful, balancing the different threats we face. Of course I must also ask you
to vote against renewal for the reasons I have outlined.
Yours
Sincerely
No comments:
Post a Comment