Home arrow Campaigns arrow General arrow No Trident replacement
No Trident replacement PDF Print E-mail
Article Index
No Trident replacement
The security challenge
Usable nuclear weapons
The myth of independence
Jobs and skills
Conclusion
Introduction

In March 2007 the House of Commons passed a government resolution supporting ‘the steps necessary to maintain the UK minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system’. Despite concerted pressure on both Labour and Conservative MPs to support the resolution, 161 MPs voted against it, including Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru and 89 Labour MPs. It was the largest backbench Labour rebellion on a domestic policy issue since 1997 and reflects widespread public opposition (see Box 2). Paradoxically, the resolution also supports taking ‘further steps towards meeting the UK’s disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty.’ The Foreign Secretary was conciliatory on the day, stating ‘Today’s decision does not mean that we are committing ourselves irreversibly to maintaining a nuclear deterrent for the next 50 years’ 1.

The Defence Select Committee report, published just a week before the vote, raised a host of questions left unanswered by the government. A number of the concerns raised by that Committee, in the three Inquiries it conducted, are addressed in this briefing, and are central to the debate: that nuclear weapons are absolutely no use against the main security threat that we currently face — terrorism; that it is widely acknowledged that we currently face no nuclear superpower threat; that serious questions exist about the ‘independence’ of Britain’s nuclear weapons. In considering these and other issues not covered by the Committee, we argue that a decision to replace Trident would actively promote nuclear weapons proliferation and would trigger a new nuclear arms race.

We conclude that now is the moment to take an initiative that can help shape a safer world, to move away from nuclear weapons and choose security systems more appropriate to the present day. We detail how such a step would bring us into line with our obligations, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — unfulfilled for over 30 years — to disarm our nuclear weapons.