Scrapping Trident would boost the UK’s military capacity – A reflection on yesterday’s publication of a report from the Defence Committee

Let me from the outset state that I am not advocating that the UK be more engaged militarily overseas. I note the stated ambition of Strategic Defence and Security Review (Oct 2010) to see more resources put into conflict prevention and we wait for flesh to be put on these bones.

However, the coalition government has set itself the challenge of maintaining “full spectrum” defence capabilities while reducing defence spending in real terms. The Ministry of Defence has announced lay-offs of 25,000 civilian personnel by 2015, the retirement of Harrier jump jets, withdrawal of Nimrod MRA4 maritime surveillance, and the closing of military training bases in Germany by 2020. “Future Force 2020” is the name given to the new-look Army, Navy and Air Force that will be slimmer, less top-heavy and, it is claimed, more fit for purpose.

Yesterday the Defence Committee published a report of their inquiry into the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review. The Defence Committee examines whether “Future Force 2020” is indeed likely to maintain the full spectrum capabilities that the government claims. It concludes that it is not convinced that the Armed Forces will maintain the capability to undertake all that is being asked of them. At the end of the day it comes down to money. One estimate suggests that the MOD projected overspend between now and 2020, even after the reductions achieved by the Strategic Defence and Security Review, is still £15 billion.

The Strategic Defence and Security Review (and therefore the Defence Committee Inquiry) has controversially not addressed Britain’s nuclear weapons and the huge £26 billion cost of building new Trident submarines. A decision on this will be taken after the next General Election in 2015 which is rather late for Future Force 2020 planning. Trident renewal would require considerable capital expenditure from the Defence budget over the same period for which funds are required to develop our Future Force 2020 capabilities.

Last week the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church and the Quakers made a submission to the BASIC Trident Commission. This covered both ethical and strategic arguments in relation to the proposed renewal of Trident after the expiry of the current submarines in 2028. In our submission to the Trident Commission we recall that the 2007 White Paper on Trident Renewal stated “the investment required to maintain our deterrent will not come at the expense of the conventional capabilities our armed forces need”. This is quite simply not true. The cost of Trident renewal will not come from a separate Treasury ‘pot’ but from the Defence budget and, as far as we can see, this was always the intention.

Trident has no value in the theatre of war. Militarily, it is ‘useless’ in every sense of the word. Cancellation of the Trident submarine replacement programme (plus further savings that could be achieved in the operation of the current nuclear weapons system) would go a long way bridging the gap between the defence budget and the demands being asked of our armed forces.

The BASIC Trident Commission

Is Trident still an open question?

I attended the launch of the BASIC Trident Commission in Parliament yesterday. Co-chaired by Lord Browne of Ladyton, former Labour Secretary of State for Defence, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Conservative Defence and Foreign Secretary, and Sir Menzies Campbell, former Shadow Foreign Secretary, this commission will look at the arguments for and against the long-term maintenance of an independent UK continuous at sea deterrent (CASD) policy and the nature of any replacement for the current submarine-based system.

 Is an open debate on Trident now possible? Certainly, the momentum in the political and military establishment behind a massive £20 billion investment in a new Trident platform is considerable but I would argue that the Trident question is still open and that this is precisely the right time for a full and informed debate. Why?

1) The international context (and in particular the NATO context) is changing; not rapidly, but potentially significantly. For example, it seems that the START Treaty signed in Berlin last weekend is only the beginning of a process. Even before the ink is dry on this treaty, background negotiations for a second phase will get underway. These are likely to be more multilateral in nature.

2) The case for Trident has yet to be argued comprehensively in the UK. Yesterday at the Trident Commission former Defence Secretary Des Browne and Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey both asserted that the evidence and ‘paper trail’ behind the case for Trident is alarmingly thin. It was suggested that a different set of ministers looking at an assessment of options could easily arrive at a very different set of conclusions due to the inadequacy of the supporting evidence. We heard, for example, that with reference to the possibility of laying up existing submarines and bringing them back into action if international circumstances required, one civil servant allegedly stated that they did not know how long it would take to prepare a submarine under such circumstances as this was not an option that they had examined.

3) Crucially public opinion has changed since the 2007 White Paper, particularly with respect to financial costs. In his memoires Tony Blair admits that the defence/security arguments for Trident are marginal but that neither he nor Gordon Brown could see themselves standing up in front of Parliament pledging to relinquish the UK’s nuclear weapons. Now there are huge pressures on public finances.  Vanguard submarine replacement would represent a sizeable chunk of the MoD budget in the latter part of this decade at a cost to conventional forces. Credible alternatives to an independent UK CASD exist and are likely to be rather more palatable to Parliament and the Ministry of Defence today.

Yesterday, Malcolm Rifkind and other members of the Commission pledged that they are each personally on a journey with project. Where they might end up is uncertain. However, we can expect that, as this Commission is independent of Government, it is likely that the evidence to support arguments for or against Trident replacement will be more transparent and open than has been the case with any previous assessment.

We will follow this Commission's work with much interest over the next year.

Procurement for Trident submarines to take place before a decision to build

In November, David Cameron promised that the building of new submarines would be the subject of debate after the next general election in 2015. At the time of this announcement the Liberal Democrats stated “Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch. Let us be clear, this is a significant victory for Liberal Democrat campaigners, and a fantastic example of what our ministers can and do achieve in government”.

Now, however, we learn via a Greenpeace Freedom of Information Request that, in contravention of David’s Cameron’s commitment to Parliament in November, the decision referred to as ‘initial gate’ due next month may well propose the purchase of major components such as primary and secondary propulsion systems for new Trident submarines within the lifetime of this Parliament.

By way of background, it is proposed that the UK build three or four new submarines to provide 30 or 40 years worth of continuous at-sea-deterrent. This would make the diplomatic work towards a new treaty for the elimination of all nuclear weapons even more challenging.

BAe Systems, who would manage a contract for the proposed build, require interim Ministry of Defence contracts to keep together a team of experts. The initial gate decision would provide BAe with a contract to design a potential new fleet of submarines. It now appears that the work to be outlined by ‘initial gate’ will include the purchase of major components of these submarines before the promised debate on their build. A future debate on alternative options would be impossible if the procurement and build is already underway.

It would be helpful if our local MPs could be asked about the proposed procurement schedule before a cabinet decision on ‘initial gate’ is made in February. Do consider writing to your MP. For further information see this CND briefing.