Trident – expensive waste or strategically imperative?

(c) Andreas Hagerman

It’s already been decided on our behalf that Trident is to be upgraded for the measly, pitifully small figure of…well, 20 billion pounds. All that for a piece of weaponry that will probably never be used. It’s not entirely disimilar to a woman going shopping and buying Harrod’s most expensive dress just because she can, and then never wearing it.

Ok, maybe I’ve gone a bit far – fancy Gucci dresses, independent submarine carried nuclear weaponry. There’s a difference, I know. But the point is – most people don’t need or use either. And when I say most people, this is the point isn’t it? There are some nations out there, some people – Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad, Osama Bin-Laden – who would quite like such a weapon. And you wouldn’t rule out the chance they’d use it.

But if they did, what use would Trident be, really? We can’t use it without American approval anyway. Presumably, were the US willing to allow us to launch a nuclear weapon, they’d be willing to use one themselves. If not, they could lend us one of theirs, they have several hundred warheads anyway.

And if a pariah state were to attain and use a nuclear weapon, surely it would make more sense for us to pre-empt this and simply invade that country, which could cost less than £20 billion if done effectively and multilaterally. A preferable option to nuclear warfare, I’d have thought.

So, from these points, it doesn’t seem to stand up on practical grounds. What other reason is there for Trident? Our seat on the UN security council. Sash Tusa argued this point in The Times some time ago now, pointing out that we will be relegated to the second division of international politics, demoted from the UN security council.

Well, given our relative economic position in the world, this would place us alongside Germany and Japan. Hardly lightweights, are they? That’s not the point though. Do we need our security council place that much? Is our pride that great? I don’t think it’s really necessary, to be honest.

I’m trying to think of ocassions when the security council has been useful. 1950 – Korea. Very useful, but only useful because Stalin decided to boycott the UN and allow the security council to avoid the Russian veto. 1991 – Iraq. Again, a success for the council. Somehow I don’t think Britain’s not being on the council in either circumstance would have changed anything, unless our place had been taken by either Korea or Iraq.

And the argument is that the EU could have a place on the council, and Japan takes the spare fifth seat. Taking my British hat off and looking at it from a world perspective, doesn’t this seem better? Doesn’t it make more sense for the whole of Europe to be represented on the council, rather than it’s two traditional imperialist powers? And given Japan’s importance in the current world order, I think their presence would be a good thing.

As far as I can see, there  is no reasonable defence for Trident. Julian Lewis sums it up for me perfectly, when he argues that the reason we should have nuclear weapons is thus – “Just as it makes no sense to scrap the Army, Royal Navy or RAF when no obvious enemy is in sight, it is vital to retain a minimum strategic deterrent as the ultimate insurance policy against aggression by any future opponent armed with mass-destruction weapons”. True, Mr Lewis, true. But the world is globalising, and unilateral action by states is a thing of the past. Any aggression by an enemy of ours would be met by a united Western response. The West has nuclear weapons – the US has enough to defend us all.

It is very costly, and for no tangible benefit. Why keep a weapons system you’ll never use? And I am willing to put my neck on the line and say that not once in my lifetime will Britain ever use this expensive waste of space for anything other than looking ‘important’.