Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports
back to the acronym home page
Calendar
UN/CD
NPT/IAEA
UK
US
Space/BMD
CTBT
BWC
CWC
WMD Possessors
About Acronym
Links
Glossary

Britain, NATO and the European Union

This page covers developments concerning nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in Britain, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) and the European Union.

British Policy

Trident Replacement:
Assessing UK Security Needs and Nuclear Policy

Highlights

Recent Developments, June - July 2006

In June 2006, Chancellor Gordon Brown apparently gave his backing to Trident replacement. In his annual Mansion House speech to the City of London on June 21, the Chancellor said that Britain must be: "strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent."

This speech provoked a storm of media coverage of the Trident replacement issue and much discussion in Parliament.

In the House of Commons, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that a decision would be taken "this year" and that the government would publish a White Paper setting out its decision-making on the future of British nuclear weapons.

On 30 June 2006, the Defence Committee published its report The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (eighth report of Session 2005-06, HC 986).

The Report made a number of important recommendations including that:

  • the UK will need to examine whether the concept of nuclear deterrence remains useful in the current strategic environment and in the context of the existing and emerging threats to the security of the country.
  • the MoD should explain its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident successor system
  • before any decisions on the future of the deterrent are made, it will be important to consider whether the possession of nuclear weapons enhances the UK's international influence and status and whether this contributes to the justification for retention of a strategic nuclear capability.

The report followed a Committee inquiry, which took written and oral evidence from a number of experts including Dr Rebecca Johnson (see below).

Full text of the Conclusions and Recommendations is available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0606/doc09.htm. Full text of the report is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmselect/cmdfence/986/98602.htm.

Background

In December 2003, Britain's Ministry of Defence announced that a decision on whether to replace the UK Trident system would be required in the next parliament, ie following the May 2005 General Election.

In its election manifesto, the Labour Party indicated that it was "committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent", but Government Ministers state that no decision has yet been taken.

In December 2005, the prestigious Matrix Chambers (London) published an important legal opinion on "The Maintenance and Possible Replacement of the Trident Nuclear Missile System". In this opinion, Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin (LSE) concluded that:

(1) The use of the Trident system would breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the "intransgressible" requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants.

(2) The replacement of Trident is likely to constitute a breach of article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

(3) Such a breach would be a material breach of that treaty.

The full text of the legal opinion is available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0512/doc06.htm.

Coverage in Disarmament Diplomacy

Trident Replacement in Parliament

House of Commons Defence Committee

In January 2006, the Defence Committee announced a series of inquiries on The Future of the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Strategic Context. The first inquiry is focussing on "the strategic context and the timetable for decision making". The Ministry of Defence submitted a Memorandum in three parts to the Committee:

The Committee took oral and written evidence at three public sessions. Dr Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director of the Acronym Institute gave evidence at the first session. The Ministry of Defence declined the Committee's invitation to participate.

The Committee's report on The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, House of Commons Defence Committee (eighth report of Session 2005-06, HC 986), was published on June 30, 2006. Full text of the Conclusions and Recommendations is available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0606/doc09.htm.

The Government's Response was published on July 26, 2006 (available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0606/doc09.htm). In its response the Government insisted that the "UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US".

The next stage of the Committee's inquiry will focus on the maintenance of onshore infrastructure and the domestic UK skills base and the linkage between the Government's Defence Industrial Strategy and the decision on retention, replacement, or abolition of the UK's Trident system.

Previously, the Committee took evidence on the possible replacement of Trident during a General Evidence Session with the Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid in November 2005.

House of Commons Library

In July 2005, the House of Commons Library published a briefing on Trident and the future of the British Nuclear Deterrent. The briefing set out three options - service life extension, direct replacement and a new capability - but did not mention the option of non-replacement.

A second HoC Library briefing was published in April 2006, which draws on research from a wider range of organisations, including the Acronym Institute. Full text is available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0604/hoc_lib.pdf.

House of Commons

Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on that a decision would be taken "this year" and that the government would publish a White Paper setting out its decision-making on the future of British nuclear weapons. The Government continues to refuse to specify when a debate will take place and/or what format it will take, in particular whether MPs will be allowed to vote on the issue.

House of Lords

Trident Replacement Articles and Publications

  • Astonishing Nuclear Costs, from the website of Paul Flynn MP, August 10, 2006
    The astonishing cost of cleaning up Britain’s nuclear sites and equipment was revealed by the Defence Secretary, Des Browne in answer to a question I raised in July. The total bill for decommissioning sites is almost £10 billion.

  • Will the BAE, Barrow-in-Furness submarine carry the UK's next nuclear deterrent? Sam Wollaston, The Guardian, July 29, 2006
    First look inside new Astute vessel that navy could adapt to carry Trident.

  • Government backs off from replacing Trident missile fleet, Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, July 27, 2006
    The government said yesterday it now believed it "would be possible" to continue operating the existing submarines beyond the original timescale.

  • £3bn to clean up MoD nuclear sites, James Kirkup, Scotsman, July 27, 2006
    It will cost taxpayers £3bn to decontaminate military bases. Sites include Rosyth dockyard in Fife the and Dounreay nuclear complex. Accountants estimate the costs will not be paid for another ten years.

  • MPs to get Trident replacement vote, Michael Settle, The Herald, July 21, 2006
    Yesterday during Business Questions in the Commons, Mr Straw surprised MPs by saying there would be a "substantive vote" on the issue.

  • Trident replacement vote 'inevitable', ePolitix, July 20, 2006
    Commons leader Jack Straw said: "Of course we should involve the House fully in a decision as important as the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in practical terms it is inevitable that there will therefore be a chance for the House to express its view on this important matter in a vote."

  • We need less tosh and more facts for a decision on Trident, Max Hastings, The Guardian, July 17, 2006
    For some people, nuclear weapons are a simple moral issue. For the rest of us, it's about weighing up the practical options.

  • Addicted to the nuclear option, William Keegan, The Observer, July 23, 2006
    Nuclear deterrence was not much use against the home-grown terrorists who caused mayhem in London just over a year ago. Nor was it much good in the power-play between a standing, supplicant, British Prime Minister and a sitting US President in St Petersburg.

  • Defence minister backs nuclear arms, Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, July 8, 2006.
    The defence secretary, Des Browne, yesterday strongly hinted he would join other senior ministers in supporting the retention of a British independent nuclear deterrent. He highlighted "the terrifying prospect" of a state with nuclear weapons linking up with a terrorist group.

  • Britain's moral imperative, Guardian Leader, July 8, 2006.
    "In the end the choice is between some form of renewal or a controlled step into a non-nuclear future, the brave and right thing to do."

  • UK needs no nuclear arms - Healey, BBC News Online, July 7, 2006

  • Trident convoys carry risk of nuclear blast, James Randerson, The Guardian, July 6, 2006
    MoD says accident could cause partial detonation
    Explosion unlikely, but result would be lethal

  • Threat of Trident the best defence, The Sunday Times Letters, July 2, 2006

  • Is nuclear necessary in a post-9/11 world? BBC News Online, July 1, 2006
    "Since the demise of the Soviet Union, does Britain still need a nuclear deterrent? That is the question posed by the House of Commons defence committee which is calling for a public debate on the future of Trident."

  • Full nuclear weapons debate urged, BBC News Online, June 30, 2006
    "There needs to be a "genuine and meaningful" public debate on whether the UK should keep its nuclear weapons, the Commons defence committee has said."

  • Ministers have failed to make a case for nuclear deterrent, MPs say, Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, June 30, 2006
    "The government must explain the purpose of a British nuclear deterrent, something it has failed to do so far, a cross-party committee of MPs says in a hard-hitting report on the future of the Trident missile system published today."

  • We don't need nuclear submarines on round-the-clock patrol, say MPs, Michael Evans, The Times, June 30, 2006

  • Blair looks set to decide first, debate later, The Times, June 30, 2006

  • Britain's nuclear-weapons fix, Paul Rogers, OpenDemocracy, June 29, 2006

  • Yesterday in Parliament, Press Association, June 29, 2006
    "The prime minister confirmed that a decision on whether to replace Britain's Trident nuclear programme will be taken "later this year". Challenged by the Tory leader, David Cameron, Mr Blair said an independent nuclear deterrent was an "essential part" of Britain's defences. He promised to consult fully on the controversial issue but stopped short of offering a Commons vote to settle it."

  • Blair pressed over Trident vote, BBC News Online, June 28, 2006
    "Tony Blair says a decision will be taken on replacing Trident later this year but refuses to promise MPs a vote."

  • Brown defends stance on Trident, BBC News Online, June 28, 2006
    "Britain can honour its commitments to Africa and also pay for a nuclear successor to Trident, according to Chancellor Gordon Brown."

  • Let's have a real debate on Trident, Independent Letters, June 27, 2006
    "If the Government is really committed to a proper debate on whether to replace the UK's aging nuclear weapon system, Trident, it should publish a consultative Green Paper setting out costs and opportunity costs for all the options, including the option of non-replacement."

  • Call for Government transparency, Times Letter by Nick Harvey MP, 27 June 2006

  • Why must Brown resurrect the Cold War's MAD strategy? Times Letters, June 27, 2006

  • If Brown takes on Cameron with spin or stunts, he'll lose, Jackie Ashley, The Guardian, June 26, 2006
    "There is no denying that, for many Labour people, Gordon Brown's advance warning that he is committed to replacing the nuclear Trident system is grim news. The left's furious reaction might have been predictable, but that does not make it insincere - still less wrong."

  • The real cost of the nuclear option, Times letters, June 26, 2006

  • MPs angry over nuclear secrecy, The Sunday Times, June 25, 2006

  • Brown under fire after he pledges to replace Trident, Will Woodward and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, June 23, 2006
    "The former cabinet minister Clare Short yesterday condemned Gordon Brown's pledge to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, warning that she and other leftwingers were no longer prepared to support his succession to the Labour leadership."

  • Brown reaches for nukes just when they look nuts, Michael Portillo, Sunday Times, June 25, 2006
    "In today’s world we need new doctrines because the enemies that we must deter — whether terrorists or rogue states — are different from the past. Without new thinking the government may waste our money and leave Britain unsafe."

  • Britain needs a nuclear deterrent more than ever, John Keegan, Sunday Telegraph, June 25, 2006
    "So the purpose of a Trident replacement would be to convince the only partly rational that, even if they possess or acquire nuclear weapons, they must not be used."

  • Mandelson calls for Trident vote, BBC News Online, June 23, 2006

  • Cost of arms insurance policy, Michael White, The Guardian, June 23, 2006
    "It won't affect the succession. Gordon was appealing to patriotic middle Britain," said one young apparatchik. "As an issue the bomb is too retro."

  • What are the weapons for? Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, June 23, 2006
    "What are such weapons for, and what is the message they give to nonnuclear countries? The government seems intent on managing and politicising the debate to suit its partisan interests. But it should not be about being on the left or the right, or whether a minister and Middle England still want "the bloody union jack on top of it", as Ernest Bevin, the Labour foreign secretary, said in 1946. It is much more serious than that."

  • Labour at the crossroads, Guardian Leader, June 22, 2006
    "Mr Brown's people were crystal clear last night that their man was making a significant statement. In a few apparently innocuous words, they said, the man who wants to be Labour's next leader was committing himself to the long-term replacement of the current submarines. We need to consider our interests in a 21st-century context, not a 20th-century one. The military case for a nuclear-armed Britain in the 2030s seems to rest largely on the possibility that something nasty may turn up. Perhaps that's a good case. But it deserves a debate it hasn't yet had. Without it, there is a justifiable suspicion that this covert decision is a purely political one about top-table status and rights of audience in Washington. Perhaps rightly. But let's discuss it first."

  • Short warns Brown on Trident row, BBC News Online, June 22, 2006

  • He has more to fear from his own party than general public, Bronwen Maddox, The Times, June 22, 2006

  • Blair promises 'proper debate' on Trident, Matthew Tempest, The Guardian, June 22, 2006

  • Brown intervenes in Trident debate with backing for nuclear deterrent, Chancellor steps in as Blair evades issue at PMQs, Replacement may cost taxpayer up to £25bn, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, June 22, 2006

  • Brown ready to call the shots by replacing Trident missiles, Philip Webster, The Times, June 22, 2006
    "GORDON BROWN’S decision to commit the Government he hopes to lead to replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent means that he has removed one of the last potential areas of policy conflict with Tony Blair."

  • Brown backs Trident replacement, BBC News Online, June 21, 2006

For previous Articles and Publications, see our archive.

Official Documents and Analysis

Extension of the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

In an authoritative legal opinion, Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin have concluded that "it is strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement" - a special arrangement between the US and Britain for exchanging nuclear information, technology and material - "is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

See also: Acronym Institute coverage of British Policy prior to 2005.

Britain and the Iraq War

Back to the Top of the Page

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

On June 28 & 29, 2004, NATO held its latest summit meeting in Istanbul. The summit was dominated by divisions over Iraq, with the US and Britain pushing for a greater NATO commitment to Iraq, whilst France refused to back plans to train Iraqi forces inside Iraq. Further analysis will be available in Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.78, which will be published shortly.

NATO's next summit will be held in November 2006 in Riga, and is expected to focus on modernising military forces.

Latest Documents and Analysis

Back to the Top of the Page

European Union

The EU3 and Iran

House of Lords Inquiry on the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2006 The Acronym Institute.