While the Cold War is long over, its remnants still permeate the world’s militaries. In Britain’s case, its four Vanguard-class submarines each take their turns patrolling, carrying their sixteen American-supplied Trident D5 missiles, with a total of 48 warheads. They, and their predecessors the Resolution-class, have lapped the North Atlantic for 38 years. With a range of 12,000 kilometres, the combination of the Vanguard and Trident have given Britain the ability to rain down annihilation, within half an hour, on any location in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas – Australia and New Zealand are pretty much the only places the Trident couldn’t reach directly from the Vanguard’s regular stomping ground.
While the Vanguards continue to circulate, returning to base only when their crews take a break, eventually their nuclear reactors will run out of fuel (yep, that’s right, they’re fuelled for their planned lifespan), their hulls will no longer be able to take the strain of deep water, and their various electronic doodads will break down so regularly that even Dr Who’s sonic screwdriver won’t be able to keep the ships running. Vanguard itself will be first to hit the scrapheap, in 2020 or so, and the other three will follow within a few years. And while a new batch of nuclear warheads could be whipped up in a few months at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, designing and building a new set of submarines will take a while. So a decision about what to do with Britain’s nuclear deterrent needs, at least according to the British government, to be taken pretty soon.
Once upon a time, Blair himself, along with much of his cabinet, was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. And that was when the Russians were the “Evil Empire” with ten thousand warheads on hair-trigger alert, a fair fraction of which were pointed at the UK. Surely now, in a world where that threat has receded, and the major threat to British lives comes not from identifiable states but by terrorists who are impossible to target by means of nuclear weapons, the time has come for Britain to pension off its nuclear submarines. Blair’s final legacy could be a shining example to the world – the first of the five NPT-declared nuclear weapons states to decide that its security is better served by renouncing nuclear weapons than continuing the largely pointless possession of them.
But that’s not going to happen. Tony Blair, and, importantly, Gordon Brown, have committed to beginning the process of designing the Vanguard submarine’s replacement. And while there are plenty in their own party unhappy about it, it’s going to happen, as the Tories strongly support it, and, indeed, their only question is whether the deterrent is large and scary enough. Only the leadership of the Lib Dems is quibbling, and, even then, their main quibble is whether the decision really needs to be taken now.
So why has Blair decided his swansong is to be the retention of a British nuclear deterrent? The arguments for the deterrent, and specifically building a new generation of submarines, is presented in this Defence White Paper:
Ballistic missile technology has also continued to proliferate and most industrialised countries have the capability to develop chemical and biological weapons. It is not possible accurately to predict the global security environment over the next 20 to 50 years. On our current analysis, we cannot rule out the risk either that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK’s vital interests will re-emerge or that new states will emerge that possess a more limited nuclear capability, but one that could pose a grave threat to our vital interests. Equally there is a risk that some countries might in future seek to sponsor nuclear terrorism from their soil. We must not allow such states to threaten our national security, or to deter us and the international community from taking the action required to maintain regional and global security.
And while the headline cost of replacing the Vanguard-class sounds stupendous at possibly 20 billion pounds over 30 years, it works out to roughly 3% of the British defence budget over that time – less, probably, given economic growth. So, for a country the size of Britain, maintaining a nuclear deterrent is actually a pretty minor cost, even allowing for an inevitable budget blowout. And, through its 30 years of existence, continues to render Britain, and its western European allies, invulnerable to conventional attack, no matter what other nations do. So, even ignoring the foreign policy take-us-seriously benefits of retaining a nuclear deterrent, you can argue that keeping missile subs is cheap insurance against, say, the Russians descending into an aggressive authoritarian nationalism as they currently threaten to do.
Bt if even the United Kingdom, led by a nominally left-wing government filled with people who cut their teeth on opposing nuclear weapons, in the most benign “conventional” security environment Britain has arguably ever faced, can’t face the prospect of giving up its nuclear capability, what hope of persuading any of the other nuclear powers? And what hope of persuading other countries that a nuclear deterrent isn’t a good idea when they remain such an effective (and comparatively cheap) deterrent against conventional military aggression?
“As for living, our servants can do that for us.” who said?
“And as for blowing up the world, well, isn’t that what the americans are for?” If Kingsley Amis didn’t actually say it, well, he damn well should have.
blah blah blah war, fighting, doom etc…
What you really neglected to tell us is that according to the “queen of clean”, the UV light in Dr Who’s sonic screwdriver (now availbale at ABC shops), is really useful for detecting the perimeter of cat wee when trying to pinpoint the source of those nasty smells.
Vote One: Shannon Lush to clean up the mess in Iraq.
Great post, Robert.
Who exactly is the deterrent deterring?
Hypothetical states can’t be allowed to deter Britain!
Reasonable question Mark. The cynical view is of course that Labour is doing this because Britain’s withdrawal from the nuclear club would cost them a couple of percent at the polls.
At a more highminded level, I think a British decision to decnuclearise would raise some geopolitical issues. Notable, if the UK abandoned a nuclear deterrent, certain former Warsaw Pact countries might start feeling a bit anxious about the need for nuclear weapons of their own. Poland, for instance. Or maybe the Baltic countries. Particularly if Russia continues its apparent slide back into authoritarianism and anti-Western sentiment.
Yes, but Russia’s military is a wreck. The only circumstances under which it might pose a nuclear threat are:
(a) through illegal dissemination of nuclear secrets or materials;
(b) through a completely irrational decision to move beyond rhetorical or economic threats.
Neither is able to be deterred through nuclear weapons.
Sure, such fears are not particularly rational, at least in the short to medium term.
However, look at the idiots who think Indonesia represents some kind of military threat to Australia despite the fact that they have no force-projection capabilities whatsoever and won’t for some time.
Russia’s military has been a wreck before. It was a shambles in the 1930s. Russia has also proven itself utterly unpredictable at every turn.
“Who exactly is the deterrent deterring?”
Dunno, Mark. I don’t have a crystal ball that can look forward 50 years. Vanguard will soldier on to 2020. It’s replacement will be in service for around 3 decades thereafter.
If you can prognosticate the 2050 European security situation with absolute certainty, you are one hell of an analyst, and the Australian Government is in dire need of your services at the moment.
Russia’s military may be a wreck now, but so was Germany’s in 1919. It improved quite a bit over the following 20 years!
Great piece, Robert. To answer the question posed in your last para, the challenge must be to continue reducing nuclear arsenals, particularly the still very large US and Russian nuclear forces. There is no need for any nuclear power to have more than a handful of weapons, so long as they are not vulnerable to the possibility of a first strike. But no nuclear power will completely abandon them in the conceivable future.
There is massive hypocrisy in the NPT set-up, of course, but the international system is not perfect and never will be.
From a strictly financial point of view, on a 50-year time horizon, it’s likely to be cheaper to maintain a nuclear military capability at a constant level and on a gradual upgrade path than to abolish it and then face the prospect of re-instating it were the need to arise.
Quite apart from anything else, there is the intellectual capital cost of allowing military capability and expertise to decay.
And yes, the British decision is confirmation of the reasonableness of Iran to seek a nuclear deterrent.
C’mon people! Everyone knows Britain’s terrified that if she abandons her nuclear arsenal she’d be wide open to nuclear blackmail from the French…
Do you think it occurs to any of the pointyheads that there has just been a successful nuclear terrorist attack in the United States, using sushi as the delivery mechanism, totally undeterred by techamalogical superiorityness or undetectable submarines?
There’s not much a submarine deterrent can do against a nori roll of mass destruction.
Pretty sure that was the UK, but what’s a letter between
dog and masterallies?Good point though. That polony shit is pretty potent. You wouldn’t need much in drinking water at a major event to take out thousands of people weeks later. Scary shit.
Quite right. Same rules apply though.
Wasabi Warheads – of course! Thanks Hoges, at last I have a bankable idea weapons system that’ll get me on the military-industrial-catering complex gravytrain!