What is this Trident anyway?
Trident is Britain’s nuclear weapons system. It is made up of four nuclear submarines. Each sub carries up to 8 missiles on board, and each missile carries up to five nuclear bombs (warheads). Each of these bombs is around eight times as destructive as the bomb which flattened Hiroshima in 1945, killing over 140,000 civilians. One Trident submarine patrols the seas at all times.
Why does the government want to replace it?
Because the whole system will wear out sometime between 2025 and 2030.
What do they want to replace it with?
The same sort of Cold War system again. They are planning for new submarines, new missiles (probably borrowed from the United States like our present ones), and new warheads.
What will that lot cost?
No one knows exactly – but over £25 billion just to build the subs. That’s the equivalent of 120,000 newly qualified nurses every year for the next 10 years, or 60,000 newly-qualified teachers every year for the next 20 years. Or it could provide a bonus of about £2,500 for every pensioner, or free public transport for generations. And that is just how much it will cost to buy the system. Running it will cost around an extra £2 billion every year on top. So the total bill is likely to reach more than £100 billion.
Who will this new Trident be aimed at?
No one knows. It will be useless against terrorists who are supposed to be the new enemy. The Soviet Union, once thought of as the enemy, has long since disappeared. No other country is threatening us with nuclear weapons. In fact, to think of using them would be insane. Land in the Lake District is still dangerous from radioactive fallout from an explosion and fire in a reactor at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, in 1986.
Surely they are an insurance policy for an uncertain future?
This is just what the government says. But it is a very odd insurance policy, which actually increases the risks that it is supposed to protect the insured person against.
What do you mean?
If Britain shows the world, by replacing Trident, that we think our security depends on us having nuclear weapons into the far future, then other countries without them will want them too. So the dangers of accidents or crises increase. India and Pakistan are more insecure with nuclear weapons today than they were when they did not have them.
Why not just cut down the destructive power we now have to a lower level?
Reductions are good as a first step forward, but they do not solve the problem when one bomb can kill hundreds of thousands of people. Even a ‘small’ nuclear exchange would kill millions. It would have a devastating impact on the world’s climate, resulting in a major drop in temperature, leaving large parts of the world’s agricultural land unable to produce crops so millions more would starve. No matter how few or how many nuclear weapons countries have, while they exist at all, other countries will try to get them too. The only way to be really safe is to abolish all nuclear weapons. This is what the majority of the countries in the world and their people want.
Have any countries actually got rid of their nuclear weapons?
Yes: South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.
How many countries now have nuclear weapons?
At least eight, and possibly nine. They have over 20,000 nuclear warheads between them. Nearly all those warheads have more destructive power than the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 and killed over 140,000 civilians.
Have there ever been accidents or moments of tension and panic when nuclear weapons might have been used?
There have been plenty of dangerous accidents and several moments of crisis when leaders or military advisors wanted to use them. We have, says Robert McNamara, who was once in charge of US nuclear policy, been very lucky. It is not a luck which can hold out forever.
What about this nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that gets talked about so much?
It was signed in 1968 and it agreed three things:
1. That every signatory is entitled to have civilian nuclear energy.
2. That those without the bomb at the time would not try to get it.
3. That those five countries that had the bomb would negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
So is Iran in violation of the NPT?
No – but it may be in violation of a subsequent voluntary agreement entered into with the International Atomic Energy Agency about inspections.
Are the countries with nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT?
Yes, since no negotiations aimed at the abolition of nuclear weapons have ever even started. All we have had are negotiations aimed at nuclear weapon good housekeeping – not so many nuclear weapons, rules about test explosions, and agreements not to put them into space, for instance.
Has the International Court of Justice had anything to say about all this?
Certainly. In 1996 the Judges of the Court said unanimously that ‘there is an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’.
How does that ruling affect Trident replacement?
For Britain to decide to replace Trident, and at the same time refuse to start abolition negotiations, cannot possibly demonstrate the ‘good faith’ demanded by the International Court Judges. Trident replacement will mean Britain possessing nuclear weapons until nearly 2060 - 90 years after we agreed to disarm!
How could negotiations on abolition start?
Easily, with enough political will. Already there is a detailed draft treaty, a model Nuclear Weapons Convention, lodged with the UN which could be the basis for starting discussions. This would ban all nuclear weapons and it covers all the difficult issues: observation, inspection on demand, verification, control of nuclear material, criminality, and the like.
Does that mean that international inspectors might want to have a look at the British bomb factory at Aldermaston or the nuclear submarine base at Faslane in Scotland?
Of course. In our global world, threats – disease, climate change, shortage of water and energy sources, the danger of war, and especially nuclear war – are all global. Solutions have to be global as well. This country cannot be above the law, even though we tried to be over the Iraq war.
Why don’t abolition negotiations start?
There are already moves in that direction. But there are still many people who do not realise that to start abolition negotiations is perfectly possible. Many of the top people in the nuclear weapon countries still think of nuclear weapons as status symbols or even as useable weapons of war. It is like storing dynamite in your cellar as a means of protecting yourself against burglars. You will go up with the burglar. Wherever and whenever nuclear weapons are used, they will release radioactive and dangerous material which will go wherever the wind takes it.
So is it time to start?
Of course. We must begin by telling the world now that we are not going to replace our existing Trident system when it comes to the end of its life and that we are going to call for the start of nuclear weapon abolition negotiations immediately.