Hans Blix and British WMD

Royal Navy Vanguard Class Trident Submarine

According to today’s Independent Dr Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector will, warn the Prime Minister in a speech to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law that the decision to press ahead with a full replacement for Trident will make it more difficult to stop other nations acquiring Nuclear weapons.

He will warn that modernising Britain's arsenal will put the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) under "strain" and increases the feeling among non-nuclear states, such as Iran, that they are being "cheated" by the nuclear states. Dr Blix will take Britain and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to task for failing to comply with their obligations under the NPT by failing to do more to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

MPs have been demanding a wide debate on the replacement of the Trident missile system. Some senior MPs have questioned the wisdom of backing the most expensive option favoured by the chiefs of staff, instead of a cheaper alternative such as nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on planes. However, a White Paper setting out the Government's preferred option will be published next month and Labour MPs will be told to back it. They will be allowed three months for "debate" but Labour MPs will be "whipped" to support the cabinet decision in a vote in the Commons in the new year.

Gordon Brown has already made it clear he will support the most expensive replacement for Trident - a new generation of submarines, with US-designed missiles and a new nuclear warhead. Early estimates suggested it could cost £25bn, but some experts have claimed the true cost could be nearer £76bn over 30 years.

The ending of the Cold War has changed the argument in the Labour Party. It is no longer a simple divide between those favouring multilateral disarmament and those supporting unilateral disarmament. Dr Blix's speech will increase the doubts among those who question the value of a more powerful nuclear weapon with multiple warheads designed to penetrate "hardened" targets, when the foreseeable threat is from rogue states or terrorists. Unlike in the 1980s, there are significant military figures with doubts over the renewal of Trident.

Britiajn’s current “deterrent” is based on a fleet of four Trident ballistic missile submarines. Before that it was based on a similar sized fleet of Polais armed submarines. The options on the table seem to be

1 – keep Trident patched up beyond its operational life (the mid 2020s)

2 – Replace it with a new submarine based ballistic missile system

3 – Seek a cheaper option based on nuclear armed cruise missiles.

There does not seem to be a fourth option – to get rid of our nuclear arsenal. Call me naïve but I have never seen the point of retaining an independent nuclear deterrent: it isn’t independent (is there a scenario where it could be used unless the US gave it’s say so?) and it isn’t much of a deterrent (it does not deter non nuclear actions – did having Polaris at the time make Argentina think twice before invading the Falklands? Would it stop a terrorist dirty bomb? of course not!).

The only reason I can see for the retention of nuclear weapons is to delude us into thinking that we are still a major world power. I would not lose much sleep if the UK lost its permanent UN Security Council seat as a result of disarmament.

All of this should have me running off to renew my long lapsed CND membership. On the other hand I am not that keen on CND’s apparent pro-iranian stance - I happened upon a recent issue Campaign magazine recently and the first article I saw praised Iran as a progressive state. For women! I think I will pass this time.



Trident nuclear deterrent CND