|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
British Lawmakers Urge Blair Government to Define Security Threats Before Updating Nuclear Deterrent By Zerline Jennings WASHINGTON — A British House of Commons committee has asked Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government to review threats facing the United Kingdom before deciding the future of its nuclear arsenal (see GSN, June 26). In a report issued last month, members of the Defense Committee said the threat of nuclear attack has diminished dramatically and therefore the United Kingdom should consider reducing its nuclear deterrent — or at least wait another 10 years before deciding whether to replace that nation’s existing submarine-launched nuclear missiles. The committee conducted the study as part of an effort to promote open debate on British nuclear weapons and to press for a parliamentary vote on the matter. In preparing its report, committee members interviewed experts at defense think tanks and universities and met with Bush administration officials and U.S. lawmakers during a May visit to Washington. “We have examined what other states and organizations could develop nuclear weapons capabilities in the 2025 to 2050 timeframe and how this might affect the strategic context in which decisions on the U.K. deterrent will be made. And we have sought to clarify the timetable within which these decisions will have to be taken and implemented,” the report states. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently that the government would decide this year whether to replace the country’s submarine-launched Trident nuclear missiles with a next-generation deterrent. Downing Street has not promised a parliamentary vote on the issue. British Labor Party lawmaker Brian Jenkins said a House of Commons vote should not be necessary because the Labor and Conservative parties both favor replacing the nuclear deterrent, AP reported. The report asks the government to explain the need for a nuclear deterrent during a time when “the most pressing threat currently facing the U.K. is that of international terrorism.” “Before making any decisions on the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the Ministry of Defense should explain its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident successor system.” The Defense Ministry, however, refused to elaborate to the committee on its position in the report and opted not to participate in a seminar the committee conducted in December 2005. It told the committee “there is nothing further we could usefully say” and that it was not in a position to offer insight on future deterrent systems, according to the report. “Ministers have yet to begin to consider future deterrent options and it is likely to be some time before we can provide advice on the range of options that might be involved, including their costs,” the ministry said. The committee said the absence of the Defense Ministry participation undermines the report and debate, since the department would be able to provide further background and address any further inquiry, if and when the issue is voted on by Parliament. The report says the committee hopes the Defense Ministry will eventually respond “substantially” to the report and explain “its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident successor system.” “If the (Defense Ministry) believes in the value of the nuclear deterrent as an insurance policy, rather than in response to any specific threat, we believe it is important to say clearly that is the reason for needing the deterrent,” the report states. Nuclear submarines have served as the backbone of the British nuclear deterrent for 40 years, the Birmingham Post reported. The government might consider replacing Trident with an air- or land-based system, but most experts expect it to maintain a submarine-based system. The British ballistic missile submarine arsenal consists of four Vanguard-class boats each capable of carrying 16 Trident missiles with as many as 12 warheads, according to the Post. This would be a maximum-capacity situation, however, as independent nuclear experts have estimated that the United Kingdom has about 200 warheads for its Trident missiles and probably arms most of the missiles with only three warheads. The United Kingdom typically keeps one submarine at sea at any one time, keeping two others in port ready for deployment and one in overhaul, according the Nuclear Notebook, published by the Bulletin for the Atomic Scientists.. “Trident was developed during the final decade of the Cold War, and was designed to counter the threat posed by the size and technical capabilities of the Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal: We need to consider whether the form of the U.K’s current nuclear deterrent is best suited to today’s and tomorrow’s strategic challenges,” the committee said. “We will have to consider whether those states and nonstate actors posing such threats can, in reality, be deterred from instigating acts of aggression by either existing or new approaches to nuclear deterrence,” the committee states in the report. “We will also have to consider how the UK’s nuclear capability should be adjusted to meet new strategic realities.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
