Lib Dems accuse Tories of trying to 'rubbish' Trident report

 

Lib Dem Danny Alexander: "It's fair to say that the two parties in government have very different approaches to this issue"

Related Stories

The coalition parties are at odds after a Lib Dem-prompted government report set out options for replacing the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system.

The Lib Dems favour reducing the number of Vanguard submarines from four now to three, saying the existing system was designed for the Cold War era.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said it would be "naive or reckless" not to have a like-for-like replacement.

But Lib Dem Danny Alexander accused him of trying to "rubbish the report".

A final decision on the issue is to be made in 2016, after the next election.

The UK has had a continuous-at-sea nuclear weapons system, with at least one submarine on patrol at any given time, for more than 40 years and has used the Trident system since the early 1990s.

While the government remains committed to Trident, the coalition partners agreed to undertake a review amid disagreements over future capability and cost.

The review makes no recommendations but set outs a range of options.

Its main findings are:

  • There are alternatives to the current posture which would enable the UK to inflict "significant damage" and deter aggressors
  • Submarines could potentially be operated at "reduced readiness" when threat levels are lower
  • A continuous-at-sea presence is the most "resilient" posture and guarantees the quickest response
  • Land and air-based delivery systems effectively ruled out
  • An entirely new system, using cruise rather than ballistic missiles, would be more expensive than renewing Trident
Trident graphic showing range of missiles, comparing size with 747 and explaining there are four submarines, one is at sea, one is undergoing maintenance and two are in port/training.

The UK's current four-submarine fleet will reach the end of its lifespan in the 2020s and one of the main arguments surrounds how many "successor" submarines - which take 17 years to build - should be commissioned.

Analysis

The Trident Alternatives Review was never going to settle the debate about the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent.

The review asked three key questions. The first two were: Are there credible alternatives to a submarine-based deterrent? Are there credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal - such as modifying the Astute submarines?

In both cases the answer appears to be no. Basing nuclear missile silos on land was never really a starter. Too controversial and too easy to target. And the review appears to conclude that modifying the Astute submarines to carry nuclear cruise missiles would be both more expensive and less effective.

The one hope for the Liberal Democrats is in the last question: Are there alternative nuclear postures, such as a non-continuous at-sea deterrent?

For the Conservatives the answer is still no. Philip Hammond says it would be like having a part time deterrent. He wants a like-for-like replacement.

But the Liberal Democrats argue you could save billions of pounds by having two submarines instead of four. There will be clear blue water between the two parties before the next election.

The report suggests four boats would be required to maintain a continuous-at-sea presence and a smaller fleet would risk "multiple unplanned breaks" in 24-hour patrolling and could affect the UK's ability to respond in crises.

It says the UK could still operate a nuclear weapons system with three or even two boats but that would depend on "political confidence" that there was no chance of an unexpected pre-emptive attack and more regular patrols could be reconstituted.

But Mr Hammond told the BBC that nuclear submarines were the "most complex man-made object on earth" and reducing the numbers available would leave the UK extremely "vulnerable".

"Just because we do not perceive an immediate threat today, does not mean there would not be a threat over the 60-year odd time horizon we are looking at," he said.

"The truth is, at the end of the day, we can have continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrents or we can have a part-time deterrent. The part-time deterrent will save us only trivial sums of money."

But Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander accused Mr Hammond of trying to "rubbish the report" and said his Conservatives colleagues "were worried about losing the argument".

'Nuclear ladder'

The UK's nuclear policy had "not moved on very much since the end of the Cold War", he said, and the review showed there were "credible alternatives" to the current arrangements.

TRIDENT TIMELINE

  • 2007: MPs approve plans for renewal in Commons vote. "Concept phase" launched to assess future submarine designs and consider value for money of project
  • 2010: Defence review decides to delay final decision on renewal to 2016
  • 2011: "Initial Gate" procurement phase to begin. Some building materials and components of nuclear propulsion system to be purchased over five years
  • 2016: "Main Gate" decision due to be taken. Submarine design and missile component contracts to be finalised
  • 2028: First replacement submarine to be delivered

"We can move on by ending 24-hour patrols when we don't need them and buying fewer submarines," he said.

"That way we can move down the ladder of disarmament as a country without compromising our national security."

Critics have questioned whether the UK can continue to pay for Trident in its current form. The government estimates renewal costs will be between £15bn and £20bn but anti-nuclear campaigners say the figure will be much higher.

Mr Alexander said £4bn would be saved in the medium to long term from moving to three submarines but the Ministry of Defence says the current cost of operating the Trident fleet is about 5% of the annual £34bn defence budget.

'In denial'

Parliament will debate the findings of the report on Wednesday.

Labour said it remained committed to maintaining the "minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent" and it believed that was best delivered through a continuous-at-sea submarine presence.

"It would require a substantial body of evidence for us to change that but this review does not appear to offer such evidence," shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said.

The SNP, which has vowed to remove nuclear weapons from Scottish soil if it wins an independence referendum next year, said the review was "not worth the paper it is written on".

"The Westminster establishment seem to have forgotten that Trident is based in Scotland, and neither the people nor parliament of Scotland want it here," said its Westminster leader Angus Robertson.

"This review is in denial, and panders to the vanity of the Westminster system which wants to keep this out-dated, dangerous arsenal of nuclear weapons on the Clyde."

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 31.

    Trident is something that benefits the EU as a deterrent aswell as the UK. Why not get the EU to chip in on the cost aswell?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 30.

    Just like the Belgrano, the Lib Dems will sink without trace after the next election. We need a nuclear deterrent. It would be foolish to even consider cutting it back to the bone when potentially anti-western Muslim states are hell bent on becoming nuclear powers themselves. So what do we do? Depend on our transAtlantic cousins to provide our nuclear umbrella? I don't think so!

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 29.

    Those who wish to have a new nuclear missile option. Do you think it will be british technology that is developed and used? it will not, it will be American and they will also have veto over when and where we can use it, just like now.

  • rate this
    -13

    Comment number 28.

    @9leaguefan
    Nuclear deterrents work! Every time a Trident sub returns to base with its missiles unfired, they have done their job, and successfully kept the peace, as they and their predecessors have done for over 50 years. Don't forget, the U.S. nuked Hiroshima because the Japanese had no credible deterrent.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 27.

    Need to move beyond the primative and savage belief that a big spear to threaten other tribes with is what keeps the peace.Goverments and populations thought that mutually ensured destruction kept the peace in the early decades of the 20th century and we should all know what happened then.The money would be much better used on project that actually keep the peace like AID & fair trade agreements

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 26.

    I'm in favour of having a deterrent, but accept some don't- that at least is a principled position. What the liberals suggest is that they want a deterrent , but one that doesn't work. So, as usual, the liberals are demonstrating that they are both unprincipled and unrealistic. Still, no change there, then.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 25.

    I don't think that we should buy any more weapons of mass destruction until we make better use of the ones we already have.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 24.

    Our trident capability is the only remaining thing which singles Britain out as a country not to be messed with. It is a platform that can host conventional as well as nuclear weapons and it's stealth capacity provides an element of surprise.
    We need to keep it to retain our credibility and thus our security.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 23.

    Why don't we SAY we're keeping 4 but in reality only keep 2 subs?

    I'm sure similar things were attempted in Ealing comedies and would involve painting new names on the sides of the subs and perhaps captains wearing false beards some of the time.

    I really can't see a flaw in this and would welcome a mere 10% of the savings as a reward.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 22.

    Please remember, these subs are keeping thousands of skilled british workers in jobs - something I though Labour in particular would be keen on!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 21.

    waste of money. currenlty used as a rhino horn replacement for right wingers

  • rate this
    +55

    Comment number 20.

    Trident is an anachronism......from an age where the defence requirements were totally different to what they are today!

    It makes me laugh when the government pontificate on how essential a nuclear deterrent is...and then they sell off our Harriers for next to nothing to the US, cut back our armed forces like there is no tomorrow, scrap the much improved Nimrod even though it was paid for LOL

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    Seems like the review was a complete waste of time and public money then. It seems absolute common sense that if you want to be a permanent member of the NATO security council and retain all the power that comes with that then you need to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent which is always ready.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 18.

    With so much of our land, infrastructure and other assets sold to overseas bidders as part of government policy (many of them from the less salubrious parts of the world), who'd want to harm the UK mainland now anyway?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 17.

    It is important to retain Trident or a similar system. Like a policeman, its presence deters. It is not meant to be used. It performs its purpose simply by "being there". Take it away and our aggressors might do things they otherwise would not. The world is in a violent and unpredictable state.
    What makes Danny Alexandr's opinion technically authoritative? He is just an MP!!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 16.

    The Liberals need to oppose the farce that is HS2 and its "benefits". Trident is better than having nothing in a world where the UN sits on its hands and allows hothead regimes to build Nukes.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 15.

    Why are we putting this information out there?.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 14.

    We need trident more than we needed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trident is about deterring invasion where as nobody seems to know why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    Would a nuclear sub deter a UK-born Jihadist? Did they ever stop the IRA? Were Baader-Meinhof or the Red Brigades scared of our big toys? Did Aum Shinrikyo consider the UK's nuke response before gassing the Tokyo underground? Do they dissuade our youth from drunken destruction of our town centres? If the answer to any of these is "yes", then let's have lots of lovely, expensive submarines.

  • rate this
    +62

    Comment number 12.

    This debate always reminds me of the bloke that keeps garlic nailed to his front door to keep vampires away.

    A neighbour commented that there weren't any vampires around here, to which the reply was - well it works then doesn't it?

 

Page 47 of 48

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.