The case against nuclear weapons is not only a moral one, argues Carol Turner. Trident replacement should be ruled out of court on practical grounds as well.
Carol Turner
With the decision to upgrade Britain’s nuclear weapons system due this year, Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader couldn’t be more unwelcome to the British establishment. The pro-nuclear lobby is in overdrive, trying to discredit his commitment to scrapping Trident.
The moral case against nuclear weapons is clear and powerful. Even the most adamant of nuclear advocates cannot go as far as to argue that inflicting indiscriminate destruction on millions of people and and on the planet is justifiable. Instead, they label Corbyn as ethical but unworldly, and so unfit to lead Britain.
The practical case against Trident is equally clear and just as strong. Britain’s nuclear weapon simply doesn’t do what it says on the tin – protect Britain from threats to its security.
Real security threats
At the end of November, the government published its National Security Risk Assessment (NSRA) 2015, alongside the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Nuclear attack is considered a Tier 2 threat, the same as it was in 2010. Nuclear attack is not among the short term dangers facing Britain; it’s one of seven potential long term threats.
Terrorism and cyber-attacks were high on both lists, alongside overseas instability in the Middle East and North Africa where the UK has been militarily embroiled for the past 15 years. Three others are threats of a different character: public health epidemics, natural disasters, and activities by transnational criminal organisations and terrorist groups such as people trafficking.
In the case of the seventh threat – from weapons of mass destruction – the NSRA considered chemical and biological attacks against Britain or UK military forces were the more likely scenarios.
What good Trident in any of these situations? Indeed, experts are beginning to worry about threats to Trident – possibilities such as a cyber-attack which takes it out of operation, or underwater drones becoming capable of detecting its ‘silent’ submarines.
Truth out: Trident is a billion-pound anachronism. If we didn’t replace it, the government would have funds to invest in productive ventures like house building and improvements to our road and rail networks – activities that would help grow the economy and generate more resources for health, education and social spending. And, of course, more cash to spare for actual threats to human security.
Deterrent or target?
What then explains this stubborn commitment to Trident? Nuclear weapons are, it’s claimed, a deterrent. Their very presence makes predatory powers such as Russia, or rogue states such as North Korea think twice before getting into a confrontation with Britain. Supposedly, the mere possession of nuclear weapons will keep us safe; we’ll never use them.
Unfortunately for the pro-nuclear lobby, Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond let this particular cat out of the bag recently when asked to comment on a North Korean missile launch. ‘North Korea,’ he said, ‘seems to think having a nuclear weapon keeps them safe. In fact the opposite is true. Nuclear weapons make them a target.’
Quite right Mr Hammond. And the same goes for Trident
Nuclear proliferators
The danger of proliferation by states such as North Korea is another favourite of the pro-nuclear lobby. Unilateral nuclear disarmament is madness, they say. Multilateralism is common sense. We are to place our trust in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Britain’s willing to get rid of its nuclear weapons just as soon as everybody else gets rid of theirs. But as the case of North Korea illustrates, the possession of nuclear weapons by powerful states is the driving force behind proliferation.
The NPT came into force in 1970, reflecting international concern about the spread of nuclear weapons and the ever-growing stock piles of the nuclear armed states. The Treaty has three components: nuclear states agree to take steps to disarm; non-nuclear states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons; and everybody agrees to inspections which verify their status.
Britain is one of 188 signatories and has ratified the NPT. In theory at least, this means the government is obliged to take steps to disarm. There are already two legal opinions that replacing Trident by a new, more-powerful nuclear weapons system is proliferation and would put Britain in breach of the NPT.
A political tool
Bottom line is, nuclear weapons have always been used as a political tool. The pro-nuclear lobby believes Trident keeps the Great in Britain, and us at the top table alongside the Americans. But individual advocates of Trident often fight shy of admitting this.
At the outset the United States used its monopoly of nuclear weapons to bolster its ability to shape the terms of the post-war settlement. US Secretary of War Henry Stimson regarded the atom bomb ‘as a master card of diplomacy’. The then Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed it enabled America ‘to dictate our own terms at the end of the war’.
Not to be left behind, the Churchill and Attlee governments alike were committed to building a British bomb – just as the Soviet Union, China, France, and others thereafter wanted their own bomb. Ernie Bevin, Attlee’s Foreign Secretary, is remembered as ‘the real patron of the British bomb’ – and for his colourful statement that there had to be a Union Jack flying on top of the atom bomb.
Trident is not independent
But Britain’s nuclear weapon are not, and never have been, independent. The UK relies on American technology. Trident is dependent on the United States in the following ways:
Unsurprisingly, Britain’s access to American nuclear know-how comes at a price. It has bred tacit and unacknowledged obligations to support US military and foreign policy goals, while the bilateral Mutural Defence Agreement provides the US with access to British bases around the world and to communications and intelligence support from Menwith Hill monitoring station and Fylingdales radar base.
The government doesn’t publish all the terms of the MDA. Indeed, considerable secrecy surrounds all Britain’s nuclear decision-making, including the allocation of large amounts of public funds. Trident means a democratic deficit for Britain as well as a financial one.
The jobs myth
Last but not least, a small but vociferous lobby within the labour movement has added its own particular twist to the debate over Trident, arguing that the nuclear industry preserves high-skilled, well-paid jobs. Skilled workers are essential to a prosperous economy, and Corbyn’s commitment to a defence diversification commission to deliver sustainable alternative employment was part of his leadership campaign.
However, Trident is not the job-creator that some would have us believe. Studies show that the number of civilian jobs has shrunk considerably over its current life time. One such by Dr Steven Schofield calculates that cost cutting by the private companies which own and run Britain’s nuclear weapons facilities has resulted in a 57% decline in employment between 1990 and 2007 – from 26,300 to 11,300 jobs.
Schofield estimates that Trident’s successor, if built, would generate 35-40% less jobs than the original project, but cost up to 100% more. That’s a poor rate of return for a multi-million investment.
Investment in sustainable alternatives would generate more jobs at equivalent skill levels. A major programme of off-shore wind and wave power, for example, could generate 50% of the UK’s energy needs and create 25-30,000 new jobs. What’s more, if Britain scrapped Trident decommissioning the submarines and warheads would provide employment for between 5 and 10 years – time for alternatives to be bedded down.
Labour’s defence review
The Labour Party acknowledges that the ‘nature of the security threats facing Britain today differs from that of the threats we faced fifty years ago’. The National Policy Forum report to Labour’s 2014 annual conference committed the party to a review of defence policy after the general election. In January 2016, Shadow Defence Secretary Emily Thornberry published its terms of reference. Setting the context, she asks: ‘What role should Britain play in building a world that is more peaceful, more just and safer…?’
For all these reasons, and more, scrapping Trident is the most realistic and hard-headed step that Britain could take towards more effective security for its citizens and a better world for all.
Carol Turner is Chair of London Region CND and Vice Chair of Labour CND
Labour CND has published a Trident Fact File – a compilation of facts and arguments to help make the case against Trident replacement, downloadable at labourcnd.org.uk