The future of the British nuclear deterrent

The government claims it is undergoing a period of debate and consultation ahead of a final decision although it is starkly clear that the decision to develop a new generation of weapons has already been taken. That much was clear nearly a year ago when The Sunday Times ran a piece entitled Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead. I blogged about this at the time and my main concern was that the debate should take place in the open and parliament should have the final say on whether or not we want a replacement and if so what form that should take, when it should be developed by and what budget should be allocated to it. To be already spending money on a replacement weapons system without parliamentary approval was and is quite simply wrong.

The Liberal Democrats will be deciding their policy on this issue at their Spring conference in Harrogate on Saturday 3rd March. The motion can be found here.

In a nutshell the Lib Dem motion notes the Labour governments position namely to retain a nuclear deterrent, extend the life of Trident and reduce the number of warheads by 20% and commence procurement for a new class of submarine. The motion then goes on to propose that the Liberal Democrat policy should be as follows :

a) Britain should now begin a major reduction of its nuclear arsenal by approximately 50%, retaining no more than 100 warheads; with each Trident submarine carrying no more than 24 warheads when on deterrence patrol;

(b) The current Trident nuclear system should be maintained and its operational life extended;

(c) A final decision on whether and, if so, how to procure any successor system be taken at the point when the significant capital spending would begin to be incurred on a three boat replacement.

An amendment is to be tabled along the lines of conference resolves that the UK should not procure a successor nuclear weapons system to the current Trident system.

I hope that the amendment is passed and that we make a clear stand on what is the correct way forward for the UK. Why do I feel like this?

1. From a moral standpoint I do not see how we can justify the possession or usage of nuclear weapons let alone the design and production of a whole new system and the submarines which act as a delivery platform.

2. As I understand it the development and production of a new system would break our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for a start.

3. Were we ever to use nuclear weapons there would be disastrous consequences for the local population and the environment in the affected region. Not forgetting of course the continuing environmental impacts of the current weapons system just through the work going on to maintain the system in a safe state.

4. The governments own scientific advisor has stated that the greatest threat that the UK faces is global warming - perhaps we would be better employed spending our time and money on tackling this issue

5. The biggest threat to our security would seem to come from terrorism within our borders. The possession of nuclear weapons will not help us protect the security of our own people against this threat one jot. According to No New Trident one retired general has summarised Trident as: "useless, expensive and dangerous". The defence of the UK actually requires more and better equipped infantry and air and naval transport. Trident is a poor use of scarce resources needed elsewhere for our national security.

6. There seems to be a general consensus that we could not use our nuclear weapons without the consent of the United States - if this is so then we do not have an independent nuclear deterrent so why have one and pay for one if we have to ask someone else for permission too use it?

7. The potential cost of this new system is colossal. The figures I have seen quoted range from £65bn to £75bn depending on the option selected. The reality of what it will eventually cost is I suspect likely to be much greater than these figures given the propensity for such schemes to experience time and cost overruns. Indeed CND quote another figure - the savings which could be achieved if the UK were to spend at the EU average for military spending would equate to £8.5 bn per year (over 25 years that is £212.5bn)

If we accept that we should not have them and are obligated not to design and produce new systems then it seems far more sensible to scrap the system and have a genuine debate about the best way to spend the consequential savings. Some could doubtless go on conventional forces and security measures but I would prefer to see most of this money being invested in protecting us from the greatest threat we face - global warming. It depends on what figure you believe for the cost of a Trident replacement but a couple of ideas of how this money could be spent were given recently in The Ecologist :

• Nine million homes in the UK need cavity wall insulation. Providing this would cost £16bn and would save 6.5 million tonnes of C02 emissions per annum
• 25,000 onshore or 8,000 offshore turbines would generate 33% of the UK energy needs and would cost £75bn. I guess that if the government invested in this then the government would reap the income from the sale of the resulting electricity so providing further funds for other projects.

This is to say nothing of the many other issues which face the UK and desperately need tackling.

The NHS needs fixing once and for all, clearly some more money is required given the shortfalls but more importantly would be some form of cross party consensus which would take the NHS away from being a political football and towards being a stable organisation which can deliver a consistently high standard of health care and drugs throughout the UK.

The waste we generate and how we deal with it is a huge problem and we are only scratching at the surface of what needs to be done to invest in systems to deal with the waste as well as the requirement to ensure that we produce as little as possible in the first place.

Public Transport need some serious investment - it is just not acceptable to have stations (as we do) with no service whatsoever on a Sunday. More houses have been built near our station in recent years and even more are going up now. Wonderful until the occupants discover that the service is somewhat infrequent at the best of times and non existent on a Sunday and they will have to use a car anyway

If you want to read more about the issues go to No New Trident here or click on the button on my side bar.

Is this what we are going to do with our nuclear waste?

According to the BBC scientists have backed the government's plan to store the UK's nuclear waste deep underground.

David Miliband told the House of Commons back in October that we were to bury our nuclear waste so I guess it is handy that this report supports the governments policy.

The policy announcement last year was not unexpected and was in line with the Committee on Radioactive Waste Managements report a summary of which can be found here. In summary the report states that :

• Geological disposal is the preferred long term solution
• Interim storage arrangements will have a vital role to play in the mean time
• A new approach to implementation is required which should be based on the willingness of local communities to participate.

Professor Charles Curtis, president of The Geological Society of London, presenting the latest report, said "After a long period without waste policy, the UK finally has a way to go forward. We concur the safest and most secure way to go is deep geological depositories, and we see no insurmountable scientific and technological barriers to this."

Apparently between one-third and two-thirds of the UK have a suitable geological make-up for deep nuclear waste burial. It is also likely that the approval, design and construction of such a facility will take up to 40 years to achieve!

There are as I see it a number of problems with the way forward as proposed.

Firstly, the government has to identify and acquire a suitable site. The search for such a site in itself will be mired in political difficulty. The government will not want to look at any sites near to any marginal Labour seats for a start. The uproar amongst the local community eventually chosen to site this repository is likely to be significant.

Secondly, the scientists may be convinced about the viability of such a storage facility but I guess the great British public may take some further convincing. I sat on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Local Liaison Committee for a number of years and this issue was discussed at length on several occasions. My only conclusion was that this stuff was best off contained in specially constructed stores above ground where the state and condition of the drums could be easily monitored and where any faulty packages could easily be retrieved and repackaged.

Thirdly, even if one agreed with the long term disposal option the government needs to address the second point made by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management namely that Interim storage arrangements will have a vital role to play. If it is going to take up to 40 years to implement the long term strategy then they had better put a bit more thought and effort into the medium term strategy.

Of course the problem might not be quite so big if we were not proposing to replace Trident with yet another Nuclear weapons System about which I propose to write more soon.

No New Trident button added

I have added a No New Trident button to my sidebar.

If you click on the button it will take you to No New Trident a campaign website set up by the Lib Dem Peace and Security Group who are seeking to secure a vote at the Harrogate Conference in March that will establish Liberal Democrat policy as being opposed to the replacement of Trident.

I will be blogging about my views on this later on.

Trident vs emission reductions

Great piece in yesterdays Guardian about the respective costs of Trident and achieving emission reductions

The latest Trident costs, calculated by the Liberal Democrats based on information extracted in parliamentary answers, suggest an overall figure of £76bn to buy missiles, replace nuclear submarines, and maintain the system for 30 years.

and

Yesterday, the environment secretary, David Miliband, played down the need for greatly increased government spending to achieve cuts, saying the market in emissions should contribute a lot, but scientists, industry bodies and others suggested about £76bn could almost guarantee emission reductions from 150m tonnes of carbon a year today to the necessary level of around 60m tonnes by 2030.

I know which I would rather see my taxes spent on

Beckett calls for a debate on Trident

Brilliant and about time too. I blogged about this back in March here.

At the time I was reporting on a Sunday Times article here which revealed that "Britain has been secretly designing a new nuclear warhead in conjunction with the Americans, provoking a legal row over the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

I complained that this was yet another example of this governments breathtaking arrogance in ignoring and sidelining parliaments proper role in the decision making process for such important matters. I also complained that we were now discovering that work has already commenced on developing a new system at AWE Aldermaston.

This seemed to be supported by reports from Greenpeace in last weeks Newbury Weekly News here about the recruitment of 25 extra scientists with expertise in hydrodynamics. The MOD says the recruitment of 25 extra scientists with expertise in hydrodynamics has nothing to do with a plan to develop a replacement for the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system. Greenpeace said the only real use for expertise in hydrodynamics - the branch of science dealing with fluids in motion - is to design a new nuclear weapon. The MOD did not deny that extra hydrodynamics scientists were being recruited, but said they were there to conduct tests on existing material. A local expert in such matters told me at a meeting last week that there is no way that they would need that number of extra scientists for the purpose which they claim they are for!

Whatever the truth it is good to see a serious commitment to a proper debate and a vote in the House of Commons.

Of course this may in due course expose the problems in the Labour Party. As Tristan said when commenting on my blog back in march "Basically it boils down to the nuclear issue which really splits the Labour Party (having twice in its history advocated unilateral disarmament with many members still supporting it). Perhaps an appeal to petty nationalism may work to pursuade some, but by no means all...It will also throw into light the slipperiness of Blair, given his membership of CND in the past (ie when it was politically expedient)"

Committee of MPs to consider Trident replacement

According to the radio this morning a Committee of MPs is to start considering the question of a replacement for Trident today.

Good. Late but good.

First three questions.

1. When did we first start developing a replacement for Trident?

2. How far have we got with this development?

3. How much have we spent so far and how much further expenditure is already committed?

And I assume that when these hearings commence they will consider the issue of whether or not we need or should have a replacement at all. Consideration of what Trident should be replaced with should await a decision that we should replace it.

Tag Politics

Parliament neutered again

This article in today's Sunday Times is yet another example of this governments breathtaking arrogance in ignoring and sidelining parliaments proper role in the decision making process for such important matters.

We were promised a proper debate about the replacement (or otherwise) for the Trident weapons system. This debate should take place in the open and parliament should have the final say on whether or not we want a replacement and if so what form that should take, when it should be developed by and what budget should be allocated to it.

What a sham when we now discover that work has already commenced on developing a new system at AWE Aldermaston. All work on a replacement system (as opposed to maintenance of the existing system) should come to an immediate halt pending a proper parliamentary decision.

Tag Politics