Nuclear Deterrent or Millstone?

For decades, Britain has possessed an independent nuclear deterrent capability. While public attention to that nuclear capacity has waxed and waned, it has always been controversial. The issue has arisen again here in Britain, launched, as it were, by several factors: the election of Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong supporter of nuclear disarmament, as leader of the U.K. Labour Party; a looming need to upgrade and replace the current nuclear force, evoking concern about cost; and, finally, the Scottish independence referendum, which last year brought renewed focus on the Royal Navy’s submarines, packed with nuclear weapons, that are home-ported on Scotland’s west coast. Most recently, a controversial commentary during a television program by a high-ranking U.K. military officer brought the debate back to life, as has, indirectly, the terrorist attack in Paris.

The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is its sea-borne Trident program: nuclear-powered Vanguard-class submarines based at the Clyde Naval Base very near Scotland’s most heavily populated metropolitan area, around the city of Glasgow. Each vessel is armed with 16 missiles, each of which has eight thermonuclear warheads. At least one is on patrol at any given moment. The system was purchased from the United States, while the warheads were developed and produced in Britain. Trident represents the United Kingdom’s only nuclear deterrent program, since the U.K. military decommissioned other delivery methods, like free-fall bombs, in 1998.


Were Jeremy Corbyn to be elected prime minister, within minutes of “kissing the hand” of the monarch at Buckingham palace, he would be given the codes that could launch these weapons of mass destruction—the ability to “push the nuclear button.” He has stated that he would refuse to do that. His reluctance raised, not for the first time, the question of the practical value of Britain’s nuclear weapons program. Can deterrence work only if the person whose finger is on the button is prepared to push it? Corbyn, and like-minded others, believe that since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, military postures based on “mutually assured destruction” no longer apply, that nuclear deterrence, if it ever really worked, has become irrelevant.

Into this debate stepped the chief of the U.K. Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton. In a television interview he claimed that, presuming Corbyn ever became prime minister, his refusal to launch would “seriously undermine” Britain’s deterrent threat. Corbyn has demanded that the general be upbraided for this intervention into U.K. politics. Others argue that Britain’s nuclear force did not rate as an independent deterrent anyway, because any decision to launch would come ultimately from Washington, not Whitehall.

The cost of the proposed replacement keeps rising; the most recent estimate is £163 billion—about $244 billion. Prime Minister David Cameron is determined to proceed with the modernization. The opposition focuses on the enormous price tag during a time of austerity and great need elsewhere. To many the proposed expenditure appears obscene. A further dimension to the debate is just emerging: Is such a huge cost justified even by purely strategic measures?

Many point out that France’s nuclear capacity did not deter the awful attacks on Paris in late November. The practical threat has shifted, even changed altogether. Nuclear deterrence and intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems are useless against the danger that a group like ISIS represents.

A second Scottish independence referendum looks likely as the Scottish National Party is set to sweep next May’s Edinburgh Parliament elections. The S.N.P. utterly opposes Trident and its renewal. An independent Scotland would insist on the removal of missiles from Scottish soil and waters. Scottish politicians have wondered aloud if a U.K. government would ever countenance basing such weapons as close to London as they currently are to Glasgow. That position is striking a chord among many Scottish voters.

Roman Catholic teaching has always argued against the use of nuclear arms, while Pope Francis has recently renewed the church’s call for their total abolition. In 1983 and again in 1993, the U.S. bishops boldly opposed nuclear weapons. The debate over nuclear weapons appears to be reviving, not only in Britain but around a changing and frightened globe. Are nuclear weapons a path to peace and security? Indeed, were they ever? Much might depend on our answer.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
William Rydberg
3 years 1 month ago
I think that it's important to remember that legally, under the Parliamentary System the Bureaucracy are seen to be independent of the governing political party. That the bureaucracy practically stays in place when there are changes at Election time and new political parties come on the scene. And legally their Mandate is that they support the Sovereign (Queen) best interests not the ruling party. I never liked the concept of mutually assured destruction, but it's been a fact all my life, and I am still here since the Cold War. I don't like knowing that the nuclear deterrent could be in disrepair for fear of pollution or accident. About potential threats to Britain, one would have to take an inventory of all the countries friend and foe and Analyze. The "world" is not a safe place generally without some form of power to back it up. And let's face it, it's much cheaper to go nuclear deterrent than pay the trillions the USA has and will need to pay for conventional arms in future. Final point, Jeremy Corbyn has a right to conscience, it's not as if should he be elected, he hasn't told people what he would do. In that respect, I think the will of the people has great significance...


The latest from america

This year’s W.Y.D takes place less than three months after the conclusion of the Synod for Young People that was held in the Vatican last October.
Gerard O’ConnellJanuary 21, 2019
On Jan. 18, a teenager wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, center left, stands in front of an elderly Native American singing and playing a drum in Washington. (Survival Media Agency via AP)

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- An exchange between Catholic high school students and a Native American tribal leader in Washington Jan.

Like most public writers, I was used to getting notes that were crude, crazy or even mildly threatening. Normally, I would say a quick prayer for these obviously troubled people and get on with my day. This time it felt different, precisely because the author wasn’t insulting or obviously deranged.
Rachel LuJanuary 21, 2019
In cities across the country, local activists marched in support of a progressive agenda centered on economic justice, racial justice and immigrant rights.
Brandon SanchezJanuary 20, 2019